Iplayer to need TV licence from 1/9/2016 - full fee required

[FiF]

dxg said:

The bottom end of that article makes reasonable sense, in that you could look at the flow of packets flowing over a connection without needing to read them (could you tell if they were UDP??), so you most likely could tell when video is being streamed over wifi, but I just don't see how you could tell where it is being streamed to / from - or whether it is a live broadcast or not.

Anyway, doesn't bother me because I will continue to not use iplayer.

It seems possible to me for iplayer to send a sequence of particularly sized packets and if that matched what was observed gives reasonable grounds for further investigation. Add in that they don't need to prove live watching versus catch-up download makes that a possibility. But then what do I know.

[CoolHands]

But how would they prove it was your network? It would rely on an admission. Tell them to fk off and there's no way they'd be able to prosecute you.

[anonymous-user]

Countdown said:

.:ian:. said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/05/bbc-to-...

Hmmm, bullst-o-meter needle just spun round so fast there was a tiny sonic boom...

Won't affect anybody on PH. We're all 100% legit.

You speak for yourself I had to endure a camcorder shot version of star trek beyond the other night courtesy of the wifes brother the sound was out of synch it was shot in eddie shah vision and his beer was warm

[eldar]

Countdown said:

Won't affect anybody on PH. We're all 100% legit.

Or Freemen of the Land

[technodup]

Sir Amyas Morse said:

Detection vans can identify viewing on a non-TV device in the same way that they can detect viewing on a television set.

By actually being a minibus full of Capita guys who knock on your door hoping to hear a telly? Because that's the only TVL activity I've ever seen in my 38 years on the planet.

You think in this online age, with the popularity of 'spotting' we wouldn't have a site, channel or page dedicated to TV detector vans? People 'spot' mullets, MPs, wolf clothing, minor celebrities, cars, you name it.

It's a crock of st. And another good reason for me to say fk the BBC.

[Countdown]

I'm not sure why some people are worried about being accused of not paying the license fee when they don't watch the BBC?

Surely let them "try to prosecute and be damned....."

[CoolHands]

Countdown said:

I'm not sure why some people are worried about being accused of not paying the license fee when they don't watch the BBC?

Surely let them "try to prosecute and be damned....."

why should they be allowed to pedal fear and untruths? And why does the media (telegraph, daily mail etc) print their outright lies as truth? eg this new total bullst about them being able to 'detect' people without licences using iplayer. It's complete and utter poppycock.

I believe in truth and openness. The bbc clearly does not.

[jmorgan]

Well, they must know where your router is in the I/p world to get the media that you are not watching to the streaming devices that you do not use for BBC.

[ashleyman]

dxg said:

The bottom end of that article makes reasonable sense, in that you could look at the flow of packets flowing over a connection without needing to read them (could you tell if they were UDP??), so you most likely could tell when video is being streamed over wifi, but I just don't see how you could tell where it is being streamed to / from - or whether it is a live broadcast or not.

Anyway, doesn't bother me because I will continue to not use iplayer.

Imagine I was watching a movie on my iPad streamed over wi-fi from my home media server. Or for instance if I was watching 4OD or another online catch-up service. Would that qualify for further investigation? Does that mean that because I have the technology to also watch the BBC iPlayer that I'll be expected to pay?

With the way things are at the moment, I know I'm in the clear as I do not have a single piece of equipment in my home that will allow me to watch terrestrial TV live - unless you include computers, iPads which currently is not a problem.

It's got nothing to do with if I am watching legally or illegally (I don't watch at all btw) but obviously not having the equipment is easier for TV broadcasts than it is to throw away all computers and tech stuff..

[Countdown]

CoolHands said:

why should they be allowed to pedal fear and untruths? And why does the media (telegraph, daily mail etc) print their outright lies as truth? eg this new total bullst about them being able to 'detect' people without licences using iplayer. It's complete and utter poppycock.

I believe in truth and openness. The bbc clearly does not.

I honestly couldn't care less if they said they were using flying unicorns to catch evaders.

If it's true and it does help them to catch scrotes then all well and good. If it deters people from scrofish behaviour then equally well and good.

[Halb]

chrispmartha said:

On the flip side I find it odd that people that don't watch live TV and don't pay the TV license moan about the license.

It's not unique to the UK either many many countries have a broadcast 'tax' and some are higher than the UK, at least we get a decent return for the tax, that's subjective of course but you can't deny the BBC has a large output.

Edited by chrispmartha on Friday 5th August 14:11

Indeed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_broadcasting

[Funk]

.:ian:. said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/05/bbc-to-...

Hmmm, bullst-o-meter needle just spun round so fast there was a tiny sonic boom...

Absolute bullst of the highest order.

There is no way whatsoever that the BBC can do this. In fact it's one of the few things that made me laugh out loud today!

If they wanted to make it secure it's an absolute doddle - all they need to do is require you to put your licence number into iPlayer to allow it to stream to that device. Limit the number of devices linked to the licence to 10 or whatever. Allow you to remove/add devices just like Sky do. Job jobbed.

But no... The BBC claim it's better/more accurate to sit and try to snoop wifi packet data from a fking van? Jesus wept. Let's, for one golden comedy moment, assume it's possible - it would be easily circumvented by.....*gasp*....plugging in an ethernet cable!

It's bks of the highest order and if they want to spend other TV licence-payers' money paying a tt to sit outside in the street trying to do that then good fking luck to them.

Here's why they're lying about it; they don't WANT any kind of encryption or security on it - it's a small step from there to making it subscription-based which is the last thing the BBC wants.

What a bunch of donuts.

Edit: I've just checked and there are, presently, 9 wifi connections within range of me at the moment. Even I don't know whose wifi is whose within the building, how on earth could the BBC ever know? Even if, and it's a massive if, they were able to somehow sniff some packets, there's no way they could know what data is contained within the stream.

The more I think about it, the more laughable and ridiculous it is. How are they allowed to peddle these lies and why does the media regurgitate it on command?

Edited by Funk on Sunday 7th August 03:25

[chris watton]

I have always wondered why they don't add encryption with access using a pin number linked to your licence. It's not hard, surely?

But as Funk points out, they don't want to go down that road, as it's one step closer for the subscription argument, and I am stone cold sure they don't want that, even though they tell us how wonderful their service is. Strange.

[anonymous-user]

Funk said:

.:ian:. said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/05/bbc-to-...

Hmmm, bullst-o-meter needle just spun round so fast there was a tiny sonic boom...

Absolute bullst of the highest order.

There is no way whatsoever that the BBC can do this. In fact it's one of the few things that made me laugh out loud today!

If they wanted to make it secure it's an absolute doddle - all they need to do is require you to put your licence number into iPlayer to allow it to stream to that device. Limit the number of devices linked to the licence to 10 or whatever. Allow you to remove/add devices just like Sky do. Job jobbed.

But no... The BBC claim it's better/more accurate to sit and try to snoop wifi packet data from a fking van? Jesus wept. Let's, for one golden comedy moment, assume it's possible - it would be easily circumvented by.....*gasp*....plugging in an ethernet cable!

It's bks of the highest order and if they want to spend other TV licence-payers' money paying a tt to sit outside in the street trying to do that then good fking luck to them.

Here's why they're lying about it; they don't WANT any kind of encryption or security on it - it's a small step from there to making it subscription-based which is the last thing the BBC wants.

What a bunch of donuts.

Edit: I've just checked and there are, presently, 9 wifi connections within range of me at the moment. Even I don't know whose wifi is whose within the building, how on earth could the BBC ever know? Even if, and it's a massive if, they were able to somehow sniff some packets, there's no way they could know what data is contained within the stream.

The more I think about it, the more laughable and ridiculous it is. How are they allowed to peddle these lies and why does the media regurgitate it on command?

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 7th August 03:25

I have` just realised that this means that ANYONE on BT internet is risking facing the wrath of the BBC !
Forgive me for not explaining things in the best way but I am deeply upset at the article I am in near shock
This is because the BT Homehubs create a sort of wifi hotspot a sort of public network now if the BBC man comes round and gives your house a "sniffing" it might well be that someone using the BT hotspot is watcjing I player and you get the blame for it.
The potential miscarriage of justices that will arise is huge. I urge everyone to get as licence even get one for a dead relative as you wont want them being dug up and prosecuted.
Save yourselves

[jmorgan]

Does this mean that every other router apart from BT is only confined to the house brick work?

[anonymous-user]

jmorgan said:

Does this mean that every other router apart from BT is only confined to the house brick work?

good point sir
well if you have a ddwrt router on some you can create your own sort of public wi fi but that's besides the point its because of this that I am in dire fear of people getting prosecuted

http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240150917/BT-h...

[FiF]

techiedave said:

jmorgan said:

Does this mean that every other router apart from BT is only confined to the house brick work?

good point sir
well if you have a ddwrt router on some you can create your own sort of public wi fi but that's besides the point its because of this that I am in dire fear of people getting prosecuted

http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240150917/BT-h...

You see this is the sort of issue why I asked the question some pages above. Setting aside the issue of what the Beeb were saying, versus the usual "this is a load of hollyhocks by the lying bar stewards" from the usual suspects, here we have proper sensible answers to a sensible question raising proper issues.

As someone else hraised you just have to plug in an ethernet cable. So given this and the other questions, if they intend to go down this packet sniffing route, as opposed to a pin number / enter licence number solution, what's to stop them, at some point hacking into the wires at the exchange? Presumably a change to RIPA powers, or?

I can't understand why they don't go down the licence number and register devices route. It works for other broadcasters. Understand the argument about it pushing them towards a subscription model, but not totally convinced about that.

[jmorgan]

techiedave said:

jmorgan said:

Does this mean that every other router apart from BT is only confined to the house brick work?

good point sir
well if you have a ddwrt router on some you can create your own sort of public wi fi but that's besides the point its lbecause of this that I am in dire fear of people getting prosecuted

http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240150917/BT-h...

Yeah, been around for years so should not be a surprise. It can be disabled. Changed my router anyway so does not work for me however the wifi still wifi's.

Besides, all my kit is hard wired. But in all reality, as you say, a lot of people would not have the wherewithal.

I don't know anything about wifi sniffing but if a fella in the lobby of a hotel can get someone's details then there is mileage in it I suppose.

[Pesty]

Funk said:

Absolute bullst of the highest order.

There is no way whatsoever that the BBC can do this. In fact it's one of the few things that made me laugh out loud today!

If they wanted to make it secure it's an absolute doddle - all they need to do is require you to put your licence number into iPlayer to allow it to stream to that device. Limit the number of devices linked to the licence to 10 or whatever. Allow you to remove/add devices just like Sky do. Job jobbed.

But no... The BBC claim it's better/more accurate to sit and try to snoop wifi packet data from a fking van? Jesus wept. Let's, for one golden comedy moment, assume it's possible - it would be easily circumvented by.....*gasp*....plugging in an ethernet cable!

It's bks of the highest order and if they want to spend other TV licence-payers' money paying a tt to sit outside in the street trying to do that then good fking luck to them.

Here's why they're lying about it; they don't WANT any kind of encryption or security on it - it's a small step from there to making it subscription-based which is the last thing the BBC wants.

What a bunch of donuts.

Edit: I've just checked and there are, presently, 9 wifi connections within range of me at the moment. Even I don't know whose wifi is whose within the building, how on earth could the BBC ever know? Even if, and it's a massive if, they were able to somehow sniff some packets, there's no way they could know what data is contained within the stream.

The more I think about it, the more laughable and ridiculous it is. How are they allowed to peddle these lies and why does the media regurgitate it on command?

Edited by Funk on Sunday 7th August 03:25

Just rename your router BBC detector van 6 they'll leave you alone then.


Edit think I'll do that anyway to mess with the neighbours

[Robbins]

Welshbeef said:

Robbins said:

The loss/cancellation by the BBC of Topgear, Formula 1, BBC3 channel amongst others proves the BBC no longer relates to me in the content it provides. Add to that added funding raised from Product Placement and the £multi-million salaries of a lot of their 'key talent' makes me increasingly resentful of paying my licence

You do know the commercial stations pay a lot more for the top talent don't you?


Please clarify what you watch on TV? F1 is a pay service do you pay it or somehow get it free "streaming"

I have nothing against the commercial stations paying £££ for top talent. I have the option to choose not to buy any products advertised, so I don't mind putting up with the adverts, they're not forcing anything on me - they can spend all the revenue they like on their 'top talent'. It's not coming out of my pocket so it doesn't matter whether I think they deserve it or not.

I find myself watching very little BBC television at all, owing to the reasons already set out. I just watch the F1 on Channel 4, highlights or otherwise. I'd be perfectly willing to pay my TV Licence if the BBC had full F1 coverage and it was good. I also watch a lot of Youtube shows and have a NowTV box for all the car shows I like on Discovery.
I hope these are satisfactory answers to your questions