Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • AndyPix
    • By AndyPix 15th Mar 17, 4:54 PM
    • 2,428Posts
    • 1,601Thanks
    AndyPix
    ISP Censorship
    • #1
    • 15th Mar 17, 4:54 PM
    ISP Censorship 15th Mar 17 at 4:54 PM
    Hi Guys


    Has anyone else read this info with a bit of trepidation ??


    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/14/uk_new_realtime_live_server_blocking_order/


    It seems to me this is an initial test of real-time censorship , which is a sad day for the internet
    Running with scissors since 1978
Page 4
    • kwikbreaks
    • By kwikbreaks 17th Mar 17, 6:37 PM
    • 8,799 Posts
    • 4,396 Thanks
    kwikbreaks
    I don't think so. Your point is that ISPs will be putting obstacles in the way of getting free football streams. I'm simply saying that in anything but the very short term it is unlikely to work.

    Additionally the tech level bar to setting up kodi on a variety of devices is the ability to enter a Google search together with the ability to follow step by step level instructions. Overcoming whatever gets put in place will likely only amount to a small change to those instructions.

    What level of technical ability is needed to circumvent the earlier piracy prevention measures such as cd and DVD ripping?
    • johndough
    • By johndough 17th Mar 17, 7:28 PM
    • 633 Posts
    • 246 Thanks
    johndough
    Hi

    My thought is block UDP packets from the sender for a coupla hours. Yeah I realise I aint defined the sender, but the stripped away contents should be decipherable as a football match.

    Block the port numbers, EG: 531 for AOL Instant Messenger to start with ;~)

    The sender will transmit on a defined port number, so don't route (or send it to 127.0.0.1).
    • forgotmyname
    • By forgotmyname 18th Mar 17, 2:16 AM
    • 25,303 Posts
    • 10,045 Thanks
    forgotmyname
    I have no interest in football but it makes me want to watch stream it to see what they are doing to block the access.

    Single IP to the server or an IP range or the entire thing which could knock a lot of websites offline also?

    johndough.. Block AOL messenger.. sacrilege? eeee I remember when AOL were great and the sun always shined...

    Then some stupid company called CPW took over and killed it stone dead.
    Punctuation, Spelling and Grammar will be used sparingly. Due to rising costs of inflation.

    My contribution to MSE. Other contributions will only be used if they cost me nothing.

    Due to me being a tight git.
    • hans 2
    • By hans 2 18th Mar 17, 5:13 PM
    • 354 Posts
    • 204 Thanks
    hans 2
    What's the verdict then?

    My streams were not affected at all,
    Last edited by hans 2; 18-03-2017 at 5:23 PM.
    • Johno100
    • By Johno100 18th Mar 17, 5:25 PM
    • 2,865 Posts
    • 3,082 Thanks
    Johno100
    What's the verdict then?

    My streaming was not affected at all,
    Originally posted by hans 2
    Makes two of us, not watching the 5.30 match because I've got the rugby on, but everything was working fine for the early match and the 3.00pm ones.
    • kwikbreaks
    • By kwikbreaks 18th Mar 17, 6:56 PM
    • 8,799 Posts
    • 4,396 Thanks
    kwikbreaks
    So were those OK without VPNs or with?
    • hans 2
    • By hans 2 18th Mar 17, 6:59 PM
    • 354 Posts
    • 204 Thanks
    hans 2
    Without on mine.
    • Johno100
    • By Johno100 18th Mar 17, 7:48 PM
    • 2,865 Posts
    • 3,082 Thanks
    Johno100
    So were those OK without VPNs or with?
    Originally posted by kwikbreaks
    Without....
    • kwikbreaks
    • By kwikbreaks 19th Mar 17, 2:17 PM
    • 8,799 Posts
    • 4,396 Thanks
    kwikbreaks
    Either not effective or not yet applied then. Unless your ISPs weren't part of the trial of course.
    • RumRat
    • By RumRat 19th Mar 17, 3:04 PM
    • 2,415 Posts
    • 1,301 Thanks
    RumRat
    I doubt they'll try very hard....
    Drinking Rum before 10am makes you
    A PIRATE
    Not an Alcoholic...!
    • anajames
    • By anajames 22nd Mar 17, 10:21 AM
    • 29 Posts
    • 49 Thanks
    anajames
    Unless they have not blocked the vpn, let's enjoy the services. That is all i have to say.
    • DiamondLil
    • By DiamondLil 10th Apr 17, 10:40 AM
    • 251 Posts
    • 226 Thanks
    DiamondLil
    To all those who post on this thread I thank you; I'm following avidly and learning a lot.
    This topic is important to me and anyone else who values the freedoms we have become accustomed to.
    • DavidP24
    • By DavidP24 10th Apr 17, 3:03 PM
    • 1,949 Posts
    • 1,147 Thanks
    DavidP24
    Issue1: Freedom

    I remember clearly the day of 911, I was on a client site with my nephew, everyone was shocked and my nephew said "you wait, they will use this to take away some more of our liberties"

    He was right and it happens with every subsequent attack.

    It is the same about WhatApp, people call for some sort of back door for the security services, supposedly on the basis that a warrant will be obtained. Unfortunately they do not understand security or how the security community work hand in glove with the hackers. It is no different to giving an electronic key that can be provided easily to foreign Governments, they will use that key to break into commercial servers, steal proprietary information, inventions or just to mess with elections.

    Right now they are seeking permission as a trial, because they simply do not know the impact, but it will be quite predictable. The people it is aimed at will not really suffer, they will find a way to spoof and provide fault tolerance, because beating "the man" is fun and they do it for kudos.

    Consider if they block an Akamai or similar IP, they may affect just one tiny part of a stream, but they may blow out a plethora of users at the same time, ironically, including the BBC.

    It would be very useful for the Government or anyone with power to be able to silence people by blocking their IP address, even on a temporary basis. Nobody will care until they or those they care about are affected, then they will say "how can they do this" and the answer will be because you went along with it.

    Issue2: Theft of Content

    As has been stated on here and other forums, this is all about GREED.

    Those who call it poncing simply do not understand it. There is NO LOSS of custom because nobody who takes such content was ever in the market to buy the product because it had been priced out of their market. As for the "they are costing us money, we have to pay more because of them", you are deluded, a market will pay what a market will pay, when did you EVER hear of prices being reduced when they put a stop to such behaviour?

    Movie and Sport giants have failed to address that market, ironically they could embrace those platforms to provide a low end affordable product but they dare not. Why? Because they fear they would not be able to FORCE subscribers to pay their massively inflated prices, GREED.

    However, to say that these freebie seekers have no value is WRONG, they still share their like of sport and movies on social media, encouraging others who CAN afford it to pay for those products and services.

    When the BBC gave Sky Formula 1 they took the sport away from me forever. The nature of the sport is such that I needed to watch it live and what I enjoyed was the fact that anything could happen and it probably would. I saw this as a betrayal by the BBC and more monopolistic practices by Sky.

    Even if I were to stream F1 is lost to me now, it was the only sport I followed, but I do not bother with pirated methods.

    However, I will do ANYTHING that I can to stick it to Sky and the BBC, if somebody asks me how to get by without paying a mortgage to Sky I will tell them what I know. I am totally for the BBC being split into two parts; a community and commercial division, with the latter offering content on subscription only to licence payers. I would then like to see the licence changed to a BBC subscription over a 5 year period (which Sky should also pay for if they offer it on their boxes).
    Last edited by DavidP24; 10-04-2017 at 3:07 PM.
    Thanks, don't you just hate people with sigs !
    • almillar
    • By almillar 11th Apr 17, 1:13 PM
    • 6,939 Posts
    • 2,760 Thanks
    almillar
    When the BBC gave Sky Formula 1 they took the sport away from me forever. The nature of the sport is such that I needed to watch it live and what I enjoyed was the fact that anything could happen and it probably would. I saw this as a betrayal by the BBC and more monopolistic practices by Sky.
    BBC were required to save money, and couldn't justify the cost of F1. They gave it to C4 AND Sky.

    There is NO LOSS of custom because nobody who takes such content was ever in the market to buy the product because it had been priced out of their market

    If you wrote a book, and I managed to get a PDF of it for free, would you be happy enough for me to read it without paying?
    • DavidP24
    • By DavidP24 11th Apr 17, 1:33 PM
    • 1,949 Posts
    • 1,147 Thanks
    DavidP24
    BBC were required to save money, and couldn't justify the cost of F1. They gave it to C4 AND Sky.
    Originally posted by almillar
    Heard it all before, excuses, sold fans out which is why I hate BBC now. Nothing you or anyone else says is going to change the way I feel, you have your opinion and are entitled to it, as am I.

    BBC spent a billion pounds on a new office, Google makes $30bn a year they would not waste a billion on an office. BBC wasted fortune on new carpet a year later, they needed something more creative.

    BBC IT Contractors are paid way over the odds, about double what some public sector organisations pay for same skills.

    They are fat and top heavy.

    They suffer from OPM, spending other people's money.

    There is NO LOSS of custom because nobody who takes such content was ever in the market to buy the product because it had been priced out of their market

    If you wrote a book, and I managed to get a PDF of it for free, would you be happy enough for me to read it without paying?
    Originally posted by almillar
    [QUOTE=almillar;72386978]

    If I priced my book badly and you could not afford it I would have no problem with you to reading it without paying, as long as you told your friends what a fantastic read it was.

    I help loads of people, sometimes they can't afford it, sometimes they do not really want to pay, it call comes back in good Karma.
    Thanks, don't you just hate people with sigs !
    • The all new me
    • By The all new me 12th Apr 17, 8:33 AM
    • 24 Posts
    • 66 Thanks
    The all new me
    It was reported in The Standard that Google's new offices in King Cross cost more than a £Billion. They have far fewer employees to accomodate than the BBC.
    • DavidP24
    • By DavidP24 12th Apr 17, 10:10 AM
    • 1,949 Posts
    • 1,147 Thanks
    DavidP24
    It was reported in The Standard that Google's new offices in King Cross cost more than a £Billion. They have far fewer employees to accomodate than the BBC.
    Originally posted by The all new me
    I stand corrected! Google DID spend a billion dollars but you are mistaken about the staff number, Google will house 5000 in one office on the site, the BBC of course had 145 acres!!

    The 1-million-sq-ft (93,000 sq m) office will sit on 2.4 acres (1 hectare) of land between Kings Cross and St Pancras stations. When the deal was announced in January, it was one of the biggest ever commercial property acquisitions in Britain. Reuters reports Google will spend £650 million ($1.05 billion) to buy and develop the site, with an eventual worth of £1 billion.
    Originally posted by QZ
    https://qz.com/139794/inside-googles-new-1-million-square-foot-london-office-three-years-before-its-ready/
    Originally posted by DavidP24
    I guess the difference is that Google does not rely on handouts enforced by Crapita Goons who lie their way into homes, even entering when only a minor is present,

    Google is building something very different and it can, because it makes the money and does not rely on handouts (just prudential use of Tax avoidance)

    The day the BBC is funded by subscription and sales of it's library will be the day I salute it and do not give a damn about what it spends.

    Something tells me that the BBC did not make a profit or even break even on the whole property project for the 145 acre site.

    http://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/property-news/buying/new-homes/5000-new-bbc-tv-centre-and-white-city-homes-go-on-sale-creating-londons-biggest-new-neighbourhood-49301.html

    The national audit office certainly thinks the BBC is spending 300% more than it should be in running costs.

    The BBC's new £1 billion headquarters cost £13,000 for every member of staff to run, three times more than similar commercial buildings.

    A damning report by the National Audit Office found that the corporation's new headquarters cost £89 million a year to run, equivalent to a third of the corporation's running costs.

    Margaret Hodge, chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said that the figure appeared to be "ridiculously" high and called on the BBC to explain itself.

    The National Audit Office said that the BBC needs to make "better use of space to achieve value for money" after it found that building's running costs dwarf those of the rest of the corporation.

    It found that Broadcasting House cost three times more than similar UK properties to run and 49 per cent more than similar properties in London
    Originally posted by The Telepraph
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11360071/BBCs-headquarters-cost-13000-for-every-member-of-staff-to-run.html
    Originally posted by DavidP24
    For me the BBC is a lost opportunity, the one thing that most TV companies lack is content, they have to build new content. The BBC however has the ability to put it's entire library online and sell it around the world. It could stop giving it away for a song to Sky and become a force in TV around the world.

    It could also make more popular TV, in the US they love Luther, but they make hardly any episodes.

    The management at the BBC are a joke, just look at the Bake Off debacle, to not put restrictions in the contract was incompetence in my opinion. Top Gear, F1 et al, just a few more examples.

    I could go on, suffice to say they suffer from the same disease you see in all kinds of public sector organisations, except most of those are now suffering under austerity but the BBC does not blink and eye.

    The problem is that Turkeys do not vote for Christmas, so like the NHS which is also top heavy with management, they will throw the real staff under the bus rather than make themselves redundant.
    Thanks, don't you just hate people with sigs !
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

225Posts Today

1,483Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin