Blocking iPlayer Live Streams

GingerBob_3

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

It amazes me that there are so many people complaining about paying the compulsory TV licence fee of about £12 per month - whilst quietly paying BT or other phone provider up to £16.99 per month for a landline and telephone service they don't want or need just to get broadband.

It also astounds me that someone is willing to pay £500/£1000/£2000 for a TV and then objects to paying £142 a year for something to watch on it.

This latest news is indeed good news that will hopefully catch all the !!!!!!!!!!s who have sucked off those who do pay the TV licence fee for long enough. The quicker it is implemented, the better.

The issue is not so much the cost, it's the way they go about collecting it.

Marktheshark

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

It also astounds me that someone is willing to pay £500/£1000/£2000 for a TV and then objects to paying £142 a year for something to watch on it.

Encrypt what you get for this £142, share out the true cost amongst the fan club of the BBC and those that do not want to pay do not have to.
They can watch one of the other hundreds of other broadcasters who manage to fund themselves without extortion and threats of prison.

It is like charging car owners "bus fare" for other people that want to use the bus.
In every other avenue, you don't pay you don't get on the bus.
In these days of digital encryption and digital broadcasting the technology to scramble the BBC service to non payers already exists and is built in to every digital TV made.

poppasmurf_bewdley

Marktheshark wrote: »

They can watch one of the other hundreds of other broadcasters who manage to fund themselves without extortion and threats of prison.

How many of these 'broadcasters' would exist if they weren't able to purchase BBC programmes which have been made using TV Licence Payer's money?

The Sky EPG, and indeed the Freeview one also, would look very bare indeed if all the channels which retransmit BBC programmes were removed.

Cornucopia

It's probably easy to assume that Dave, Gold, etc. are subsidised in some way by the BBC. But that would be a breach of the rules, of course.

gjchester

Marktheshark wrote: »

It is like charging car owners "bus fare" for other people that want to use the bus

In a sense car drives DO pay a bus fare, as most bus fares are subsided via the county council anyway, or via the VED fee, as most of that does not go on road building. Similarly my Council Tax covers the Fire brigade, but thankfully I've never called on their services. it also covers education but I have no kids. However its all bundled together and we all pay a portion rather than pay the full price at point of use, no different to the NHS and National insurance.

Marktheshark wrote: »

In these days of digital encryption and digital broadcasting the technology to scramble the BBC service to non payers already exists and is built in to every digital TV made.

Not quite. The technology does exist to encrypt channels and was used by the likes of Top up TV, however the vast majority of Freeview boxes and TVs do not have the CAM slot to put a subscription card into. Getting a good proportion of UK households to replace their existing free view receivers (be they standalone or embedded in a TV or PVR) would be a very difficult propposition. Most TV/STB makers don't ever update their firmware once a unit is out of the door so even if the boxes (and they will all be a few years old as TUTV closed a few years ago) have the slot, getting the makers to deploy software to use it would be another issue.

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

How many of these 'broadcasters' would exist if they weren't able to purchase BBC programmes which have been made using TV Licence Payer's money?

Cornucopia wrote: »

It's probably easy to assume that Dave, Gold, etc. are subsidised in some way by the BBC. But that would be a breach of the rules, of course.

Dave and Gold are owned in part by the BBC, via BBC Worldwide, and the profits help subsidies the license fee. Its more a circle, Dave and Gold show older BBC shows, and pays the BBC back in terms of a fee to show them, which gives the money to make shows that in a few years will show up on the likes of Dave and Gold.

gjchester

Cornucopia wrote: »

Anyway, I've had a further play, and can confirm that for Youview, and for Windows 7 PC running IE, Firefox or Chrome, the only address that needs blocking is:

a.files.bbci.co.uk/media/live/

For Youview, you can also block preview images (including the Live Stream previews) using this address:

ichef.bbci.co.uk/

I don't doubt it works but proving it was in place at a later date to a non techncial person from TVL would be an uphill struggle. Very few home grade routers have anything like a audit log that would show that at any given time the block was in place, and the device in question was only going through that router.

Swipe wrote:

I think it will just be BBC iPlayer otherwise it will get too messy to enforce and will be depriving ITV and Ch5 of ad revenue if it results in less people using their catchup services

Why would that make a difference? Many poeple pay a subscription to Sky or BT, and while this can be a lot of money they still have adverts on the services.

VisionMan

gjchester wrote: »

Remember for the vast majority this is a non issue they already have a licence so its no big deal. For some who do not have a licence because they have no TV its a problem, but My guess is this is squarely aimed as the people who choose to watch catch up only to avoid the licence fee.

I agree.

gjchester wrote: »

Remember the BBC is cutting back, do you think they'll have a complicated subscription system they setup, manage, and support[?]

From a technical standpoint this should be a relatively simple and low cost automated system to administer. Have a central register (via a cloud) that stores License Fee numbers that all the PSB players have access to, register once on each and away you go.

Not quite that simple, but you get the idea.

Cornucopia

gjchester wrote: »

I don't doubt it works but proving it was in place at a later date to a non techncial person from TVL would be an uphill struggle. Very few home grade routers have anything like a audit log that would show that at any given time the block was in place, and the device in question was only going through that router.

It was never intended for that purpose. Remember that I posted it before the latest proposals came along. The BBC had just remote-installed live streams to my Youview box, and I came up with a way of disabling them at a time when that was the distinction between a legal installation and a potentially problematic one.

Not that TVL would have any right to examine a router's audit trail if it had one (which I think mine does).

Cornucopia

gjchester wrote: »

I don't doubt it works but proving it was in place at a later date to a non techncial person from TVL would be an uphill struggle. Very few home grade routers have anything like a audit log that would show that at any given time the block was in place, and the device in question was only going through that router.

It was never intended for that purpose. Remember that I posted it before the latest proposals came along.

Not that TVL would have any right to examine a router's audit trail if it had one (which I think mine does).

I have to say, more generally, I'm getting a little weary of discussing State-sponsored draconian enforcement measures against something as trivial as watching TV. Some of the discussion is starting to look grossly and irrationally disproportionate.

The proposals have the potential to push maybe 2 million currently legally Licence-free households in one of three directions:

- Getting a Licence
- Stopping watching catch-up on PSB channels (which is not a bad option)
- Illegality

The complication is not just the decision above, but also the existing dysfunctional (possibly unlawful) enforcement.

Let's hope this ends well for the Powers That Be. At the moment, I'm not convinced that it will.

VisionMan

Cornucopia wrote: »

Some of the discussion is starting to look grossly and irrationally disproportionate.

Grossly and irrationally disproportionate. How so?