BBC iPlayer behind a firewall?

....snip...

Am I missing something here? (Probably, as I know very little about
iPlayer, and how it works)
I assume your 'precious' (not being sarcastic here) PC is already
connected to the internet, and connects out any time you open a browsing
session.
What's the difference between that, and starting an iPlayer 'viewing'
session...?

As I understand it, the iPlayer hi-def stuff uses a peer-to-peer network
which means that no only will it go and request stuff, but it permits other
peers to request stuff from it. It does this so that it can share parts of
programs around the web and save any individual PC's bandwidth. This also
increases download speeds because the program/film is being sources from
multiple uploads from multiple other peers in the network (and don't forget
upload speed is normally much less than download speed).

When I surf, I manually enter the web address of the site I want to see - I
know which computer I'm connecting to. I block every attempt from any
outside PC to connect to me, with a very small number of known exceptions
which I control. But whilst iPlayer is peering, I have no idea which other
PCs are going to connect to me to ask my PC to source the film I've just
watched, they just do!

Paul DS.

Me too and me neither - but your method is a little like Ann Widdecombe
bragging that she's never had and STD.

Interesting metaphor except inappropriate. I can "poke" known computers and
be safe. It's the idea of the iPlayer peer-to-peer network allowing any old
PC to "poke" me that I don't like.

I already have both firewalls and anti-virus software on all my PCs but
the fact is that I have a large amount of work related stuff on my home
PC and I need to keep any risks to the absolute minimum.

Currently I control when my PC connects "out" but with iPlayer I
effectively say "connect out whenever you feel like it".

Not necessarily - you can watch the iPlayer stuff in a browser then close
the browser/turn off/disconnect the PC afterwards.

But this is only the low-def stuff. For hi-def I need to be part of the
peer-to-peer network. Sorry, but with 20/20 hindsight I didn't make it
clear I wanted to do this.

In message ,
Paul D.Smith Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

...snip...

Am I missing something here? (Probably, as I know very little about
iPlayer, and how it works)
I assume your 'precious' (not being sarcastic here) PC is already
connected to the internet, and connects out any time you open a
browsing session.
What's the difference between that, and starting an iPlayer 'viewing'
session...?

As I understand it, the iPlayer hi-def stuff uses a peer-to-peer
network which means that no only will it go and request stuff, but it
permits other peers to request stuff from it. It does this so that
it can share parts of programs around the web and save any individual
PC's bandwidth. This also increases download speeds because the
program/film is being sources from multiple uploads from multiple
other peers in the network (and don't forget upload speed is normally
much less than download speed).

Ahh, point taken. If the iPlayer software uses peer-to-peer technology(I
didn't know this!), and, I guess, requires some holes poked in the firewall
to allow this software to function(??) then it IS definitely more of a
security risk than normal browsing. PROBABLY still safe as long as you take
the necessary precautions, but I can understand your paranoia... )
is it possible to just block the peer-to-peer in-bound stuff at your
firewall, so that you can download stuff, but stop other computers
connecting to you... (though I guess that's not really entering into the
spirit of the peer-to-peer thing!)

--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:40:40 +0000, Paul D.Smith wrote:

But whilst iPlayer is peering, I have no idea which other PCs are
going to connect to me

This is true while you are downloading is it not?

to ask my PC to source the film I've just watched, they just do!

Why is it a problem for you if other PC's download from you, just
as you do?

In article , Tim..... wrote:
That seems a bit like only being able to read a book in the bookshop
where
you bought it.

Actually it's the same as only being allowed to read the book in the
library
that you borrowed it from

OK... but whichever it is, isn't technology supposed to enable us to do
things
better? If not, what's the point of it?

But it does

It enables you to do something that you couldn't do before. I don't see
that it is reasonable to complain that the provision of this completely new,
FREE, service comes with some restrictions (which are there for comercial
reasons).

It doesn't enable me to use the technology to the true extent of its abilities.
Unlike older technology, which was developed under the philosophy that an
improvement or innovation should increase its ability to do things, a lot of
modern technology includes things that are deliberately designed not to work,
even though the equipment is fundamentally capable of it.

I find myself unable to view deliberately making technology that won't work,
even though it could, as anything other than seriously warped. The fact that it
is done for "commercial reasons" (i.e. greed) may be an explanation but it is
not an excuse. We should be seeking ways to regulate this kind of practice as a
much more effective way of battling waste than re-using a few plastic bags.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:30:41 -0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Tim..... wrote:

It doesn't enable me to use the technology to the true extent of its abilities.
Unlike older technology, which was developed under the philosophy that an
improvement or innovation should increase its ability to do things, a lot of
modern technology includes things that are deliberately designed not to work,
even though the equipment is fundamentally capable of it.

Exactly, like region-coding on DVDs and Blu-Rays, which is
specifically designed to allow copyright owners to charge what
different markets will stand. If all their prices were fair in the
first place, there would be no point in doing this.

I find myself unable to view deliberately making technology that won't work,
even though it could, as anything other than seriously warped. The fact that it
is done for "commercial reasons" (i.e. greed) may be an explanation but it is
not an excuse. We should be seeking ways to regulate this kind of practice as a
much more effective way of battling waste than re-using a few plastic bags.

Exactly. Books don't become unreadable just because they've been
carried over the Atlantic in someone's personal luggage on an
airliner, so why should DVDs and Blu-Rays? The Sony Walkman MD Net
can upload music via USB, so why can't it download your band-practice
of this morning the same way? The list is endless. It's a corporate
version of 1984, double-speak, double-think, and all.

There is a fundamental conflict of interest in having copyright
holders also be the controllers of the means of reproduction, and
this leads at best to inefficient development of technology, at worst
to the sort of corporate malpractice that Sony are so renowned for -
deliberate crippling of technology, rootkits on customers' PCs, etc.
Such firms should be forced to split along the lines of the conflict
of interest.

On Dec 10, 2:12*pm, "ChrisM" wrote:
In message ,
Paul D.Smith Proclaimed from the tallest tower:



...snip...

Am I missing something here? (Probably, as I know very little about
iPlayer, and how it works)
I assume your 'precious' (not being sarcastic here) PC is already
connected to the internet, and connects out any time you open a
browsing session.
What's the difference between that, and starting an iPlayer 'viewing'
session...?

As I understand it, the iPlayer hi-def stuff uses a peer-to-peer
network which means that no only will it go and request stuff, but it
permits other peers to request stuff from it. *It does this so that
it can share parts of programs around the web and save any individual
PC's bandwidth. *This also increases download speeds because the
program/film is being sources from multiple uploads from multiple
other peers in the network (and don't forget upload speed is normally
much less than download speed).

Ahh, point taken. If the iPlayer software uses peer-to-peer technology(I
didn't know this!), and, I guess, requires some holes poked in the firewall
to allow this software to function(??) then it IS definitely more of a
security risk than normal browsing.
is it possible to just block the peer-to-peer in-bound stuff at your
firewall, so that you can download stuff, but stop other computers
connecting to you...

--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

You can configure iPlayer to download but not allow uploads, i.e. non
P2P mode, in the advanced settings, or whatever they call it.

You can configure iPlayer to download but not allow uploads, i.e. non
P2P mode, in the advanced settings, or whatever they call it.

Oh err. Sounds very handy. Thanks for that.

Paul DS.

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
Erm, I have heard of paranoia, but this seems ridiculous. Surely, every
site knows who has connected with it, so I just don't get the problem.
Brian

See my comments about the peer-2-peer network. The issue is that as part of
these you have no idea which other PCs are directed to your PC whilst it
acts as a peer in the network (with connections being negotiated by "big
brother" in the middle).

Paul DS.

In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , David Hearn wrote:
What demented mind invented the concept of technology that is
deliberately designed to stop working after a time limit, and only
to work in a restricted way while it does? Have we room for this
nonsense in our world of waste?

The mind which wanted to be able to still sell the series DVD box set,
but wanted to allow people to catch up for 30 days for free.

For 30 days after the broadcast you can watch the downloaded content.
They're not however, going to give it to you perpertually though.
They make significant amounts from the DVDs - which helps fund
programme production.

So it's greed then.

rant warning

Not quite. 'Greed' is a 'necessary' condition, but not by itself a
'sufficient' one. :-)

As common for the people who run/own the 'meeja biz' the behaviour really
requires some suitable mix of greed, ignorance, and idiocy. Plus having no
real concern for either the source authors or the end audience. So you
could add in some 'arrogance' or 'selfishness' I guess. :-)

It seems somewhat idiotic to try to force downloads/streams to
self-destruct in the same world where millions routinely record the same
broadcast material using home DVD recorders, etc.

Another by-product of the behaviour is that those who don't use chosen
software/OS combinations are - so far as the meeja types are concerned -
locked out of accessing the streams/downloads that are 'protected' as they
are denied the software, etc, required.

The result is to inconvenience - and treat as potential criminals - the end
users, whilst doing nothing much about commercial scale piracy. Also to
apply pressure to buy and use the 'approved' systems.

My own view is that a public funded body like the BBC should only broadcast
material whose decoding can be done using open source software. (This is a
different issue to the question of maybe distributing 'keys' of some kind
to 'permit' decoding.)

However as should be obvious, the process has no concern for the wishes of
the end user. They are primarily seen as a source of funds and/or
justification for the pay of the people running the meeja companies. :-)

Witness also countless parallel examples. CDs clipped and level compressed
to death. Endless attempts to 'copy protect' LPs, CDs, etc that were doomed
to failure. 'Nag' screens at the start of DVDs that treat every purchaser
as a criminal, plus threats to rip your legs off if you dare to misbehave.
etc...

I have often wondered if people are encouraged to home record films and TV
series just to avoid being treated like a naughty child and forced to sit
though a nag screen when they want to watch something. If so, I guess it
may serve the idiots who add these to commercial products right. But alas,
I fear that the real cost would be for the authors and performers. The
meedja company moguls will just top slice their nice salaries from the
pile, regardless.

/rant

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html