Charging for iPlayer

Yellow wrote:

Andy Burns says...

As for catching people out, presumably they already log IP addresses
(not infallible) and plant cookies to track devices and what they've
watched, so we won't need PC detector vans ...

But unless we have to start logging in to use IPlayer, they cannot
connect an IP address to a TV Licence.

I don't object to logging-in to access other services I pay for.

On 07/07/2015 09:47, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 09:26:15 +0100, David Kennedy
wrote:


Something like an annual licence fee perhaps?

Yes, I just want the current scheme to cover all equipment.

Really? You want to be obliged to pay the BBC just to be allowed to
look at anything with a screen?

Rod.

A clever response but a little naive perhaps? Unless you are suggesting sat
nav, mobile phones, gps, monitors and all the other screens are going to be
charged for? I really would object to paying to view the led screen on my
multi meter or the one on my washing machine.

I think it was you that suggested "all equipment". (See above). If
anything like this ever does make its way into law, it'll need to be a
bit more specific than that.

Rod.

Not Guilty [see above the above]

--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

In article ,
says...

Yellow wrote:

Andy Burns says...

As for catching people out, presumably they already log IP addresses
(not infallible) and plant cookies to track devices and what they've
watched, so we won't need PC detector vans ...

But unless we have to start logging in to use IPlayer, they cannot
connect an IP address to a TV Licence.

I don't object to logging-in to access other services I pay for.

No, me neither. I want this loop hole de-looped and if that is what is
required I am more than happy.

In article , Yellow
wrote:
In article ,
says...

Yellow wrote:

Andy Burns says...

As for catching people out, presumably they already log IP
addresses (not infallible) and plant cookies to track devices and
what they've watched, so we won't need PC detector vans ...

But unless we have to start logging in to use IPlayer, they cannot
connect an IP address to a TV Licence.

I don't object to logging-in to access other services I pay for.

No, me neither. I want this loop hole de-looped and if that is what is
required I am more than happy.

Its a question of details.

I'd be happy with that *provided* it wasn't a pest requiring something like
frequently having to type in 'scrambled' long strings of alphnumeric or
similar. Having to type in something like

Xa8emSms*wepMYdE320pp

every time might get to be a pain. The keys would presumably need to be
long if each possible UK houshold needed a unique one, and the Hamming
spaces need to be wide to deter brute force hacks.

And it would need to work via interfaces that the BBC did *not* design, so
not tie us only to their webpage GUI, say. Similarly, it would need to be
usable on *any* OS. Not force us to pay MicroSoft or Apple (large tax
dodging non-UK concerns) for an OS we don't want or like. Etc.

At present Linux users who employ a browser like FF may be losing out
because of the ongoing use of Adobe Flash to mediate. The Linux plugin is
old, and can't cope above 44.1k. Since the streams are now all 48k that
means the audio is downgraded. Because Adobe cannae be bothered and the
BBC didn't realise this because they'd not been told. Adobe told them all
was well. It isn't.

Which shows the unwisdom of someone like the BBC risking having to rely on
large non-UK companies and becoming 'trapped' into needing what they can be
bothered to provide. Fortunately, the BBC want to go to HTML5. But oddly,
that's being impeded by the reluctance of certain companies to impliment
the standard. Hmmm...

As things stand, if you're a Linux user you need to use something like
get_iplayer to avoid the above problem.

The practical reality I suspect is that any 'logging in' would, in this
situation, either be a PITA in one way or another, or still 'leak'.
Probably end up being both as a 'compromise'. Almost certainly cheaper and
easier in the long run to just allow access to all in the UK without any
such dubious login barrier.

The problem here is people who should be paying but dodge. At the moment
using a legal loophole that is to be closed. (apparently)

It would probably make more sense for the BBC to handle this via DSPs/ISPs.
In effect, blocking any who won't co-operate in finding offenders. An
informative discussion with the ISP would take the place of a detector van.
An email to fee dodgers could take the place (initially) of a knock at the
door.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page 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

In article , Martin
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 12:54:24 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Martin
wrote:
The advantage of a 'flat per household per year charge' is that it
avoids all the effort/expense/argument that otherwise would end up
devoted to trying to determine who watched what, when, where, etc.

Even simpler is to fund public broadcasting from the infra structure
like the Dutch do.

The potential disadvantage being that it could allow the Government of
the day a more direct control over funding in shorter timescales.

The UK Govt already has full powers to limit the licence fee and uses
them.

Strickly speaking the fee is authorised by Parliament.


That would save £150 million a year in enforcing licence payments plus
the cost of time wasting prosecutions in overloaded courts.

Which could instead be charged to those found by courts to have failed
to obtain a license. The fines/levy costs on those who can pay may help
cover the costs of those who can't.

There is no licence needed in a country, where public broadcasting is
funded from the infra structure.

--
Please note new email address:

In article , Martin
wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 23:02:49 +0100, Yellow wrote:

In article ,
says...

Roderick Stewart wrote:

I think it was you

No it was me.

that suggested "all equipment". (See above). If anything like this
ever does make its way into law, it'll need to be a bit more
specific than that.

A wanted to give a one-liner, not something with the legalese of a
green paper!

The current law doesn't cover all television apparatus, does it? Only
apparatus *installed* to receive TV ... so I wouldn't expect a revised
law to include all computers, tablets, phones, washing machines etc,
any more than the current law includes a TV connected only to a CCTV
camera.

They currently pop-up a warning in iPlayer to say you need a licence
for live programmes, but not for catch-up, so why not just get it
extended to catch-up?

As for catching people out, presumably they already log IP addresses
(not infallible) and plant cookies to track devices and what they've
watched, so we won't need PC detector vans ...

But unless we have to start logging in to use IPlayer, they cannot
connect an IP address to a TV Licence.

They can if you have to provide an IP address to get a TV licence. When
you connect to iPlayer they know your IP address.

most people don't have a static IP address.

--
Please note new email address:

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 12:41:43 +0200
Martin wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 23:02:49 +0100, Yellow wrote:
But unless we have to start logging in to use IPlayer, they cannot
connect an IP address to a TV Licence.

They can if you have to provide an IP address to get a TV licence.
When you connect to iPlayer they know your IP address.

Given almost all home IP addresses both numeric and DNS are dynamic and often
change each time a DHCP lease is renewed that IP address is meaningless. The
best they'll be able to do is know your service provider and your rough
geographic location. Any more information than that and they'd need to get a
court order.

--
Spud

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 12:41:43 +0200, Martin wrote:

As for catching people out, presumably they already log IP addresses
(not infallible) and plant cookies to track devices and what they've
watched, so we won't need PC detector vans ...

But unless we have to start logging in to use IPlayer, they cannot
connect an IP address to a TV Licence.

They can if you have to provide an IP address to get a TV licence.
When you connect to iPlayer they know your IP address.

You've been watching CSI haven't you? :-)

Rod.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 12:41:43 +0200, Martin wrote:

As for catching people out, presumably they already log IP addresses
(not infallible) and plant cookies to track devices and what they've
watched, so we won't need PC detector vans ...

But unless we have to start logging in to use IPlayer, they cannot
connect an IP address to a TV Licence.

They can if you have to provide an IP address to get a TV licence.
When you connect to iPlayer they know your IP address.

You've been watching CSI haven't you? :-)

Rod.

LOL!

I was recently shown a blow up of a screen from an episode of a CSI type
proggy and they screen was suppose to show a clever clever hacking
program, except if you looked carefully you could see that it had
variables like "crayon".

Perhaps the detail would improve if someone said, "can you enhance
that?".

"Yellow" wrote in message
T...
They can if you have to provide an IP address to get a TV licence.
When you connect to iPlayer they know your IP address.

That assumes that your ISP allocates you a static IP which doesn't change
each time your router is rebooted.

I was recently shown a blow up of a screen from an episode of a CSI type
proggy and they screen was suppose to show a clever clever hacking
program, except if you looked carefully you could see that it had
variables like "crayon".

Perhaps the detail would improve if someone said, "can you enhance
that?"

The best "detail enhancement" mumbo jumbo I saw was from an old episode of
Columbo in which a dinner invitation was seen still to be on a person's
mantelpiece when he was supposed to have taken it to the dinner as ID. This
was on a recording of his CCTV system, in which the card was probably no
more than 20 pixels by 10 - but they "enhanced" it so the wording was
clearly legible.

Almost as good as an episode of South of the Border in which a dot-matrix
impact printer (remember those?) was used to print an A4 photograph in about
3 seconds when it would have take a minute or so in reality.

I do like it when TV and films get technology *so* badly wrong :-)