BBC live TV streams using 500 kbps

On 2 Dec, 10:05, "DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote:
The BBC has launched live streams for BBC1 and BBC2 at a bit rate of
500 kbps:

http://www.internetstreams.co.uk/200...live_streaming...

Cridland's claim that 128 kbps live streams are unreliable is becoming
more laughable by the day...

Indeed.

Two things to note about the live streams...

1. "Don't forget, to watch TV online as it's being broadcast, you
still need a TV licence" it says at the bottom.

I think that's a significant driver for making these available. With
iPlayer, you arguable get a far better service than a typical analogue
TV viewer, but don't have to pay for it (no live TV received = no TV
licence required). If they can entice those people using their PC in
place of a TV to watch live TV on-line, they'll (legally) have to get
a licence.

2. Have you seen the BBC One and BBC Two DOGs? They're 4x3 safe, on a
16x9 only service. To me, this adds credence to the fear that they
intend to slap these DOGs on all channel on all outlets when they
think they can get away with it - they obviously have 4x3 safe ones
ready and waiting for BBC One and BBC Two, and just enabled them on
these feeds.

(Contrast that with the plain "BBC" DOG added to some iPlayer content,
which is extreme top left of picture and would be cut off in the
overscan of even a 16x9 TV. That was specifically added for iPlayer
only)

I suppose it could be that the pig ugly DOGs on all the other BBC
channels are taken from off-air feeds, so are 4x3 safe, and the BBC
One and Two ones were just made to match.


Ignore me - I'm just trying to understand the thought processes of
people I have contempt for.


All said and done, it's nice to have these available, though if I knew
what it was costing, I might not think it was a _good_ use of my
licence fee.

Cheers,
David.

Ignore me - I'm just trying to understand the thought processes of
people I have contempt for.



You can be sure the BBC has contempt for you and I too.

In article ,
Light of Aria wrote:

You can be sure the BBC has contempt for you and I too.

But at least their English is better than yours.

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

"Richard Tobin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Light of Aria wrote:

You can be sure the BBC has contempt for you and I too.

But at least their English is better than yours.

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.



At least my English isn't confined to bullcrap speak and smearing in bold
marketing craplets on top of TV pictures.

In article , Richard Tobin
scribeth thus
In article ,
Light of Aria wrote:

You can be sure the BBC has contempt for you and I too.

But at least their English is better than yours.

-- Richard


Off coarse...
--
Tony Sayer

" wrote:

I think that's a significant driver for making these available. With
iPlayer, you arguable get a far better service than a typical analogue
TV viewer, but don't have to pay for it (no live TV received = no TV
licence required).

I would not be surprised if the law is changed to require a licence
for watching iPlayer on-demand, or even for just having broadband ...

--
Ronan Flood

"Ronan Flood" wrote in message
...
" wrote:

I think that's a significant driver for making these available. With
iPlayer, you arguable get a far better service than a typical analogue
TV viewer, but don't have to pay for it (no live TV received = no TV
licence required).

I would not be surprised if the law is changed to require a licence
for watching iPlayer on-demand, or even for just having broadband ...

--
Ronan Flood



Given that the present BBC TV Licence is unenforceable (no BBC Licence here
since 2002), how would they actually enforce an Internet TV licence under
Criminal Law requiring evidence beyond reasonable doubt?

Would Parliament pass such a law in the current climate (Ross/Brand,
economic ruin, housing meltdown, etc)?

The Courts and Jails haven't the capacity to deal with real crime before
some even more silly actions becoming criminalised.

Still from a government that when a man is about to perform coitus with a
woman is told "to think long and hard", anything is possible. ;-)

On 2008-12-03, Light of Aria wrote:

"Ronan Flood" wrote in message
...
" wrote:

I think that's a significant driver for making these available. With
iPlayer, you arguable get a far better service than a typical analogue
TV viewer, but don't have to pay for it (no live TV received = no TV
licence required).

I would not be surprised if the law is changed to require a licence
for watching iPlayer on-demand, or even for just having broadband ...

--
Ronan Flood



Given that the present BBC TV Licence is unenforceable (no BBC Licence here
since 2002), how would they actually enforce an Internet TV licence under
Criminal Law requiring evidence beyond reasonable doubt?

Easy. "just for having broadband". You have ADSL you don't have a
license, you're guilty. Basically.

--
David Taylor

"David Taylor" wrote in message
...
On 2008-12-03, Light of Aria wrote:

"Ronan Flood" wrote in message
...
" wrote:

I think that's a significant driver for making these available. With
iPlayer, you arguable get a far better service than a typical analogue
TV viewer, but don't have to pay for it (no live TV received = no TV
licence required).

I would not be surprised if the law is changed to require a licence
for watching iPlayer on-demand, or even for just having broadband ...

--
Ronan Flood



Given that the present BBC TV Licence is unenforceable (no BBC Licence
here
since 2002), how would they actually enforce an Internet TV licence under
Criminal Law requiring evidence beyond reasonable doubt?

Easy. "just for having broadband". You have ADSL you don't have a
license, you're guilty. Basically.

--
David Taylor



Who has broadband? What's a definition of?

At what rate of bandwidth does it become licensable? Would a 56K modem
count? Would possession of a Mobile Phone? G2, G2,5, G3?

Would an SDSL modem connecting to a private VPN only class as broadband?

What if one's ISP did not peer with the entire internet or blocked specific
ports?

Who would be the offender? The subscriber or the end user?

Would the connection need to be established to one's gateway or a mere
contract count as the offence?

What would the penalties be?

Would licensing the access to information and communications be compatible
with ECHR Article 10?




I'm all for it. Anything the exposes the BBC to more legal action and
obstruction pleases me.

"David Taylor" wrote in message
...
On 2008-12-03, Light of Aria wrote:

"Ronan Flood" wrote in message
...
" wrote:

I think that's a significant driver for making these available. With
iPlayer, you arguable get a far better service than a typical analogue
TV viewer, but don't have to pay for it (no live TV received = no TV
licence required).

I would not be surprised if the law is changed to require a licence
for watching iPlayer on-demand, or even for just having broadband ...

--
Ronan Flood



Given that the present BBC TV Licence is unenforceable (no BBC Licence
here
since 2002), how would they actually enforce an Internet TV licence under
Criminal Law requiring evidence beyond reasonable doubt?

Easy. "just for having broadband". You have ADSL you don't have a
license, you're guilty. Basically.

Possibly with a tally to an ip address going to the iplayer site and
watching something, but lets not give them ideas eh?