Re: iPlayer will require login with postcode

[tim...]

"Jethro_uk" <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:nsdd0i$jni$8...@dont-email.me...
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37477229
>
> Just curious if (and how) any validation on the accuracy of data entered
> will be ?
>
> And any legal consequences for supplying inaccurate data - whether by
> accident or design ?

I don't imagine there will be an offence of "gaining access to iPlayer by
false representation" (assuming you are otherwise accessing it legally)

> All users of the BBC's iPlayer service will have to log in with a
> personal account from early 2017.
>
> Users of BBC services can already create an online account - known as a
> BBC ID - but this is not currently required in order to access iPlayer.
>>From Tuesday, BBC ID holders also have to add a postcode to their account
> information.

I always use a fake (fsvo) one. I hate people collecting my location
information unnecessarily

>
> TV Licensing will have access to the information but the BBC says it will
> not be used for enforcement purposes.

shame

>
> The corporation says the changes are part of an attempt to make its
> services more personal and localised.
>
> Anyone watching BBC programmes via iPlayer has been required to have a TV
> licence since the start of this month.
>
> A BBC ID - which allows users to personalise BBC content

Not interested.

please supply a "turn off the nannying shit" option

> such as online
> news - currently requires only an email address and password, though
> anyone wishing to comment on stories must also provide a date of birth.

Wot! So the person who is minded to reply in an anti-social way is going to
comply with this, are they?

Pointless nonsense!

> About seven million accounts already exist, the BBC said.
>
> Coming less than a month after the extension of the licence fee to the
> iPlayer, it's hard not to see this as just a way of encouraging people to
> pay up.

and why not?

> The inclusion of a postcode as part of the new compulsory sign-up
> information certainly suggests it could be a way of alerting TV licensing
> to homes that currently don't have a licence but are watching the iPlayer.
> The BBC says the information won't be used for enforcement - but adds it
> may be in the future.

There are 30-40 households in the average PC area

It wont be the slightest bit useful in that aim

Just have people enter their license number and then match its use against
simultaneous IPs.

> The personalisation argument has some weight. With young people watching
> less and less "live" TV, the key to ensuring they are even aware of what
> is on offer is to find out who's watching, track their tastes and try to
> tempt them with programmes that reflect their age and where they live.

You really think that this works? You are a marketers dream customer.

> All broadcasters want to know more about their audience, especially the
> harder-to-reach younger viewers.

how does knowing that one of the residents of 4 Acacia drive is watching a
BBC3 catchup whilst another resident of 4 Acacia drive is watching a BBC4
catchup tell you which one is the 17 YO kid and which is the 60 YO father?

And when 4 Acacia drive is watching catchup via their smart TV in the
lounge, how can you tell if one, two or three members of the family (or the
whole street) are watching?

Always assuming that the system is capable of telling you what type of
device is being used for catch up (I presume that it is)

Yes you can make an assumption, but you can do that from just raw viewing
figures.

tim

[HarpingOn]

On 27/09/2016 11:06, tim... wrote:

> I always use a fake (fsvo) one. I hate people collecting my location
> information unnecessarily

I tend to use BS8 2LR funnily enough, which seems especially germane to
this. I remember it from "Why Don't You?" from years ago.

[Neil Williams]

On 2016-09-27 10:06:23 +0000, tim... said:

> Just have people enter their license number and then match its use
> against simultaneous IPs.

I must admit to being very surprised they aren't going that way.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

[Roland Perry]

In message <nsdd0i$jni$8...@dont-email.me>, at 09:09:38 on Tue, 27 Sep
2016, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:

>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37477229
>
>Just curious if (and how) any validation on the accuracy of data entered
>will be ?

I wonder if this risks obsoleting another tranche of hardware with
iPlayer built in, if they don't have the capability to conduct this
login process. And I hope you only have to log in once per appliance,
not once per session.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <nsdgds$j9q$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:06:23 on Tue, 27 Sep
2016, tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:

>I don't imagine there will be an offence of "gaining access to iPlayer
>by false representation" (assuming you are otherwise accessing it
>legally)

Comms Act s125? It will all depend on the definitions of "Communications
Service" I expect.

That's if you don't think s363 applies, on account of the BBC
potentially saying you aren't authorised to use iPlayer unless you give
the correct information.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <e4v35n...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:23:35 on Tue, 27
Sep 2016, Neil Williams <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> remarked:

>> Just have people enter their license number and then match its use
>> against simultaneous IPs.
>
>I must admit to being very surprised they aren't going that way.

Smartphones (or any appliance tethered to mobile broadband) change their
IP address a lot.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <nsdqmh$sea$4...@dont-email.me>, at 13:03:13 on Tue, 27 Sep
2016, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:

>> I wonder if this risks obsoleting another tranche of hardware with
>> iPlayer built in, if they don't have the capability to conduct this
>> login process. And I hope you only have to log in once per appliance,
>> not once per session.
>

>I would have thought "Smart" TVs would be capable of upgrading to cope
>with such issues ? I know my TVs iPlayer app was recently upgraded to
>deal with the licence question.

This specific licence login process?

>But TV-attached devices (e.g. blu-ray players, FireSticks et al) may not
>be so flexible.

Nor might older Smart TVs, where the manufacturer is no longer providing
updates. Or if like some blu-ray players in the past it has been decided
that the platform inherently lacks some capability required to run the
upgraded player.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <nsds6c$sea$5...@dont-email.me>, at 13:28:44 on Tue, 27 Sep
2016, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
>>> [quoted text muted]

>>
>> This specific licence login process?
>

>No, the recent change which asks if you have a licence. I am presuming
>the app had to be updated in order to make this work ?

Unless it's cached the answer given by someone in the past, the iPlayer
app on my smart box doesn't ask.

>I'm not massively fussed - as far as I am concerned any "Smart" features
>on my TV are gimmicks anyway. Every single one (bar 3D :) ) can be
>delivered by at least one alternative method ....

I'm getting fed up having to keep switching to alternatives, and
throwing away otherwise perfectly good equipment.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <nse262$sea$6...@dont-email.me>, at 15:10:58 on Tue, 27 Sep
2016, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:

>>>I'm not massively fussed - as far as I am concerned any "Smart" features
>>>on my TV are gimmicks anyway. Every single one (bar 3D :) ) can be
>>>delivered by at least one alternative method ....
>>
>> I'm getting fed up having to keep switching to alternatives, and
>> throwing away otherwise perfectly good equipment.
>

>I think we will slowly revert back to TVs being just the physical display
>part - or at least there will still be a market for just panels. Much in
>the same way the mass market embraced "music centres" in the 1970s, but
>separates were still available - if a bit niche and at a premium.

Isn't that analogy backwards? If the equivalent of the TV monitor is the
power amp and speakers, a music centre has at least the tuner/radio/CD
etc and power amp, and the one I bought recently also had the speakers.

>Given a £40 Firestick (or Google Chromecast device) can provide nearly
>all the smart functionality anyway .....

We've got a Chromecast, and the smarts are in the separate appliance you
use to control it. In our case an iPad.

--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <nse3qr$sea$7...@dont-email.me>, at 15:39:07 on Tue, 27 Sep
2016, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
>Interestingly, I have just been signed out of the BBC site, and
>encouraged to sign in again to "bbc.com" rather than ".co.uk"

On what platform?

>At which point I was warned I would have to provide more details and was
>given an option to cancel if I didn't wan to.
>
>I chose to process and was greeted with a request for a postcode.
>Literally. Just one word "postcode". So I put a postcode in, and
>proceeded.
>
>The postcode I used was SW1 1AA - which was my default testing postcode,
>before I discovered the Royal Mail (like Ofcom for phone numbers) has
>issued some dummy postcodes.
>
>Not quite sure this is what was intended, but I have complied.

I quoted that postcode to a PPI scammer recently, but they'd obviously
got it flagged, because they said "nice try".
--
Roland Perry

[Neil Williams]

On 2016-09-27 15:10:58 +0000, Jethro_uk said:

> I think we will slowly revert back to TVs being just the physical display
> part - or at least there will still be a market for just panels.

Many of us are already there. I watch live TV through a Youview box
and other stuff via a Chromecast device. I don't use the television
set as anything other than a large-screen monitor. It is tuned in
because it was part of setup, but I don't use the tuner day to day.

[Roland Perry]

In message <e4vlr6...@mid.individual.net>, at 17:42:14 on Tue, 27
Sep 2016, Neil Williams <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> remarked:

>> I think we will slowly revert back to TVs being just the physical display
>> part - or at least there will still be a market for just panels.
>
>Many of us are already there. I watch live TV through a Youview box
>and other stuff via a Chromecast device. I don't use the television
>set as anything other than a large-screen monitor. It is tuned in
>because it was part of setup, but I don't use the tuner day to day.

That's fine as long as you don't ant to watch live TV at the same time
the box is recording N channels as a PVR.

N=2 these days for many boxes, but I think mine will allow me to watch a
third channel as long as it's on the same multiplex as one of those
being recorded. Not that most people would know what that means (and the
box certainly doesn't tell you).
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <nse66l$sea$8...@dont-email.me>, at 16:19:33 on Tue, 27 Sep
2016, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
>>> [quoted text muted]
>>
>> On what platform?
>
>their website.

What hardware platform - the Smart TV you mentioned earlier??
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 16:48:11 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> put
finger to keyboard and typed:

>In message <nse3qr$sea$7...@dont-email.me>, at 15:39:07 on Tue, 27 Sep
>2016, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
>

>>The postcode I used was SW1 1AA - which was my default testing postcode,
>>before I discovered the Royal Mail (like Ofcom for phone numbers) has
>>issued some dummy postcodes.
>>
>>Not quite sure this is what was intended, but I have complied.
>
>I quoted that postcode to a PPI scammer recently, but they'd obviously
>got it flagged, because they said "nice try".

Try XM4 5HQ. Or, possibly a tad more plausibly (and a good test of how up
to date their postcode database is, if indeed they have one), E20 3PS.

Mark
--
Insert random witticism here
http://www.markgoodge.com

[Roland Perry]

In message <nse8fg$sea$1...@dont-email.me>, at 16:58:24 on Tue, 27 Sep
2016, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:

>>>> On what platform?
>>>
>>>their website.
>>
>> What hardware platform - the Smart TV you mentioned earlier??
>

>No, my windows 7 PC - I was already logged in ...

Let us know when any of this appears on your Smart TV, after all it was
you who started that hare running.
--
Roland Perry

[Andy Burns]

Jethro_uk wrote:

> Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> I wonder if this risks obsoleting another tranche of hardware with
>> iPlayer built in
>

> I would have thought "Smart" TVs would be capable of upgrading to cope
> with such issues ?

Prediction: Some will be deemed "too old" and won't receive an update.

[Brian Reay]

On 27/09/2016 11:09, Jethro_uk wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37477229
>
> Just curious if (and how) any validation on the accuracy of data entered
> will be ?
>

> And any legal consequences for supplying inaccurate data - whether by
> accident or design ?
>

While I've not real issue with this move by the BBC (even though I don't
support the TV licence in general), I can't really see it being enforced
by this method.

Surely someone could simple enter a false name and postcode with a
reasonable 'guess' it will have a valid licence. While I'm certainly not
advocating such things, those who are minded to do such things will do
them. After all, most people tend to do the right thing an buy a
licence. Unless the user name has to be a 'real' name to cross check to
the licence database (which I suspect has all kinds of Data Protection
issues), the system can't know if the person claim to have a licence at
XY1 AB9 is who he claims or not.

To work, some kind of reference, to perhaps a unique number on the TV
licence, would be required. I'm not sure if there is even a number on
licences these days, I renew ours automatically and get an electronic
notification (in fact I've just had one). Even then, some kind of limit
to stop people sharing their number with all and sundry would be
required. Say, 6 authorised users per licence? (A bit more than Parents
and the average 2.4 children.)

Of course, if we scrapped the TV licence, then this fuss wouldn't be
needed but, as long as it is, it is only reasonable that iPlayer is
covered by some restriction.

[Neil Williams]

On 2016-09-27 16:52:33 +0000, Jethro_uk said:

> AS long as you're not paying for the "smart" features

I paid for them when I bought the set (well, they came with it), but I
don't see why I would be paying for them on an ongoing basis.

[Neil Williams]

On 2016-09-27 16:49:38 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> That's fine as long as you don't ant to watch live TV at the same time
> the box is recording N channels as a PVR.

I don't really use the PVR feature any more, I use the players.

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 09:09:38 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> put finger to keyboard and typed:

>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37477229
>
>Just curious if (and how) any validation on the accuracy of data entered
>will be ?
>
>And any legal consequences for supplying inaccurate data - whether by
>accident or design ?

It's a marketing move, not a licence enforcement move. It's the same
reasons that ITV are rolling out the same requirement to log in when using
their own streaming or catch-up service, even though they have no
responsibility (or need) to enforce legal use of their system.

As such, the BBC don't really care that much about the people who give
false data. It's the ones who give correct data that are important. Which
will be most of them.

[Nick Leverton]

In article <e4veqa...@mid.individual.net>,

Not iPlayer, but:
"Sony recently announced on its UK support site that 50 different 2012
Bravia TV models will lose their YouTube app on September 30"

<http://www.pcworld.com/article/3115730/home-tech/youtube-disappearing-from-50-sony-bravia-sets-highlights-why-smart-tvs-suck.html>

Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

[polygonum]

On 27/09/2016 18:13, Mark Goodge wrote:
> Try XM4 5HQ. Or, possibly a tad more plausibly (and a good test of how up
> to date their postcode database is, if indeed they have one), E20 3PS.

Having recently gone through numerous issues with our new house and its
new postcode, am wondering whether they will refuse access if your
postcode is not known to them?

Have always disliked the situation where you can be force to lie in
order to obtain what should be readily available - and it is just their
system that doesn't accept that.

(We got away lightly, the actual postcode has been in use for a while,
but not with our house number.)

--
Rod

[Roland Perry]

In message <e4vooc...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:31:56 on Tue, 27

Sep 2016, Neil Williams <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> remarked:

>> That's fine as long as you don't ant to watch live TV at the same time
>> the box is recording N channels as a PVR.
>
>I don't really use the PVR feature any more, I use the players.

It's so much faster to use a PVR,
It covers all channels with one "app",
It covers channels that don't have an "app",
It automatically reminds you the programmes you wanted to see
(especially if a series),
You can continue watching where you left off (some apps do that as well)
You can skip the adverts,
And most of all, the programmes don't rot away after
an absurdly short period of time.
--
Roland Perry

[Sara Merriman]

In article <oMOpRvnl...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry

Not everything works "best" for everyone. I tend to use the PVR, Rog
tends to download from catch-up channels to his iPad because that works
better for him. Horses for courses, as they say.

[Roland Perry]

In message <e502o8...@mid.individual.net>, at 21:22:34 on Tue, 27
Sep 2016, polygonum <rmoud...@vrod.co.uk> remarked:

>Having recently gone through numerous issues with our new house and its
>new postcode, am wondering whether they will refuse access if your
>postcode is not known to them?

Use whatever the postcode is on your TV licence, one has a right to
expect both parts of the system will be using the same database.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <nsedtf$tbn$1...@leverton.org>, at 18:31:11 on Tue, 27 Sep 2016,
Nick Leverton <ni...@leverton.org> remarked:

>
>Not iPlayer, but:
>"Sony recently announced on its UK support site that 50 different 2012
>Bravia TV models will lose their YouTube app on September 30"

I've got two Smart boxes, and the older one [which doubly irritatingly
have two instances] of them is still rotting away; it lost iPlayer a
while back, and looking at it just now I see there's no YouTube any
more, nor indeed in the 13 remaining 'channels' anything I recognise.
Once it had about 40 'channels'.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <gjclub1m87oklc2ks...@news.markshouse.net>, at
18:58:24 on Tue, 27 Sep 2016, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:

>It's a marketing move, not a licence enforcement move. It's the same
>reasons that ITV are rolling out the same requirement to log in when using
>their own streaming or catch-up service, even though they have no
>responsibility (or need) to enforce legal use of their system.

Which added complexity is the straw which broke the camel's back, and so
I won't ever be using their catch-up service.
--
Roland Perry

[Roger Hayter]

OTOH, there is a rapidly increasing number of programmes which are only
available via 'catch-up apps' and are never (or only partially)
broadcast.

--

Roger Hayter

[Roland Perry]

In message <nsfubj$sea$1...@dont-email.me>, at 08:17:56 on Wed, 28 Sep

2016, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:

>>>>>> On what platform?
>>>>>
>>>>>their website.
>>>>
>>>> What hardware platform - the Smart TV you mentioned earlier??
>>>
>>>No, my windows 7 PC - I was already logged in ...
>>
>> Let us know when any of this appears on your Smart TV, after all it was
>> you who started that hare running.
>

>Currently I'm up to date - I may have an hour at the weekend. If the
>inbuilt LG app is dead, I have the TiVo (which being on subscription
>should be kept up to date. If Virgin decide they no longer wish to use
>iPlayer as a selling point of TiVo, it may be the last reason I need to
>lose the TiVo).
>
>Failing that, I can either: stream a program on bbc.co.uk, or use the
>iPlayer app (one presumes the BBC will keep these up to date in lockstep)
>on my tablet and cast to the big TV screen.
>
>Notice I haven't even thought about the iPlayer feature on my blu-ray
>player :)

None of that elaborates upon:

I would have thought "Smart" TVs would be capable of upgrading

to cope with such issues ? I know my TVs iPlayer app was
recently upgraded to deal with the licence question

Was that an app inside your LG TV, and how do you know it copes with the
postcode question already?
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <1mua43b.67avhy140ffiiN%ro...@hayter.org>, at 09:12:27 on
Wed, 28 Sep 2016, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:

>> >> That's fine as long as you don't ant to watch live TV at the same time
>> >> the box is recording N channels as a PVR.
>> >
>> >I don't really use the PVR feature any more, I use the players.
>>
>> It's so much faster to use a PVR,
>> It covers all channels with one "app",
>> It covers channels that don't have an "app",
>> It automatically reminds you the programmes you wanted to see
>> (especially if a series),
>> You can continue watching where you left off (some apps do that as well)
>> You can skip the adverts,
>> And most of all, the programmes don't rot away after
>> an absurdly short period of time.
>
>OTOH, there is a rapidly increasing number of programmes which are only
>available via 'catch-up apps' and are never (or only partially)
>broadcast.

In that case it won't ever be available via PVR, so comparing the ease
of use of a PVR vs an app *for that programming* is futile.

All it does is bring us back to the situation that apps to view things
like that (Netflix for example), built into smart boxes/TVs, continue to
be a hostage to fortune when it comes to ongoing support.
--
Roland Perry

[tim...]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uAsoyLQs...@perry.co.uk...

> In message <nsdqmh$sea$4...@dont-email.me>, at 13:03:13 on Tue, 27 Sep 2016,
> Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
>>> I wonder if this risks obsoleting another tranche of hardware with
>>> iPlayer built in, if they don't have the capability to conduct this
>>> login process. And I hope you only have to log in once per appliance,
>>> not once per session.
>>
>>I would have thought "Smart" TVs would be capable of upgrading to cope
>>with such issues ? I know my TVs iPlayer app was recently upgraded to
>>deal with the licence question.
>
> This specific licence login process?

Smart devices have to cope with the way that all of the on demand services
change from time to time

none of them are static, they all muck around with their interface (and IME
not to the benefit of the user)

As long as they have the capability to enter text in to a box (which they
must do because all on demand services have "search" functions) it should be
trivial to add this.

>>But TV-attached devices (e.g. blu-ray players, FireSticks et al) may not
>>be so flexible.
>
> Nor might older Smart TVs, where the manufacturer is no longer providing
> updates.

Agreed

That is why the precise provision of smart services has moved out of the box
and into the ether.

My access to iPlayer changed considerably when they added the new streams
for the Olympics (and then took them away again afterwards), but this was
not done by a software download

> Or if like some blu-ray players in the past it has been decided that the
> platform inherently lacks some capability required to run the upgraded
> player.

I think that's a different issue

tim

[tim...]

"Jethro_uk" <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:nsds6c$sea$5...@dont-email.me...

> On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 14:15:24 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> In message <nsdqmh$sea$4...@dont-email.me>, at 13:03:13 on Tue, 27 Sep
>> 2016,
>> Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:

>>> [quoted text muted]

>>
>> This specific licence login process?
>

> No, the recent change which asks if you have a licence. I am presuming
> the app had to be updated in order to make this work ?
>

> I'm not massively fussed - as far as I am concerned any "Smart" features
> on my TV are gimmicks anyway. Every single one (bar 3D :) ) can be
> delivered by at least one alternative method ....

Not, IMHO conveniently

I used to hate watching catch up on my computer screen in my office

Even moving the computer to the lounge and plugging it into my TV was an
unsatisfactory solution (you can't FF etc with the TV remote)

Now that I can call it up to playback directly on my TV, with all of the TV
remote features still operating, I find I use it a lot more

tim

[tim...]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:asvlJnXi...@perry.co.uk...

> In message <e4vlr6...@mid.individual.net>, at 17:42:14 on Tue, 27 Sep
> 2016, Neil Williams <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> remarked:
>>> I think we will slowly revert back to TVs being just the physical
>>> display
>>> part - or at least there will still be a market for just panels.
>>
>>Many of us are already there. I watch live TV through a Youview box
>>and other stuff via a Chromecast device. I don't use the television
>>set as anything other than a large-screen monitor. It is tuned in
>>because it was part of setup, but I don't use the tuner day to day.
>
> That's fine as long as you don't ant to watch live TV at the same time the
> box is recording N channels as a PVR.

can your box really not do that?

you need a better box

tim

[tim...]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:oMOpRvnl...@perry.co.uk...

It can replay stuff that the broadcasted didn't put on catchup for <insert
preferred absurd> reason

tim

[tim...]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:y2oP$qO$3m6X...@perry.co.uk...
> In message <nsdgds$j9q$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:06:23 on Tue, 27 Sep 2016,
> tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>
>>I don't imagine there will be an offence of "gaining access to iPlayer by
>>false representation" (assuming you are otherwise accessing it legally)
>
> Comms Act s125? It will all depend on the definitions of "Communications
> Service" I expect.
>
> That's if you don't think s363 applies, on account of the BBC potentially
> saying you aren't authorised to use iPlayer unless you give the correct
> information.

I think the point is that noone is accessing a service that they are not
entitled to access

They are simply lying about some trivial issue as they do so (a requirement
that simply gives the supplier the ability to create value from that
information).

I fail to see how any contractual obligation to be honest can be enforced as
a criminal act under any existing law.

tim

[tim...]

"Jethro_uk" <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message

news:nsg0cd$sea$1...@dont-email.me...

> BBC3 ?

If it's any good it finds it's way onto BBC2

tim

[tim...]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:lWTKHMPR...@perry.co.uk...
> In message <e4v35n...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:23:35 on Tue, 27 Sep

> 2016, Neil Williams <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> remarked:
>

>>> Just have people enter their license number and then match its use
>>> against simultaneous IPs.
>>
>>I must admit to being very surprised they aren't going that way.
>
> Smartphones (or any appliance tethered to mobile broadband) change their
> IP address a lot.

I know

that's why I restricted the comparison to IPs that were being used
simultaneously

tim

[tim...]

"Brian Reay" <no...@m.com> wrote in message
news:nse40b$pjq$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 27/09/2016 11:09, Jethro_uk wrote:
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37477229
>>
>> Just curious if (and how) any validation on the accuracy of data entered
>> will be ?
>>
>> And any legal consequences for supplying inaccurate data - whether by
>> accident or design ?
>>
>
> While I've not real issue with this move by the BBC (even though I don't
> support the TV licence in general), I can't really see it being enforced
> by this method.
>
> Surely someone could simple enter a false name and postcode with a
> reasonable 'guess' it will have a valid licence. While I'm certainly not
> advocating such things, those who are minded to do such things will do
> them. After all, most people tend to do the right thing an buy a licence.
> Unless the user name has to be a 'real' name to cross check to the licence
> database (which I suspect has all kinds of Data Protection issues), the
> system can't know if the person claim to have a licence at XY1 AB9 is who
> he claims or not.
>
> To work, some kind of reference, to perhaps a unique number on the TV
> licence, would be required. I'm not sure if there is even a number on
> licences these days,

there is

you need it to log in to renew (if you do that manually)

tim

[Roger Hayter]

A practical limitation of satellite technology is that in order to
record an indefinite number of channels at once you need an LNB with
four independent outputs, and a set-top box with four inputs. If, as
is common, you only have two inputs and are recording two programmes
then it is quite likely that only fifty percent of other channels are
available to play at the same time. Processing power in the box may
limit things further, but the fact that each LNB channel has to be
hard-switched to only a quarter of the satellite bandwidth is a
technical limitation that cannot worked round.



--

Roger Hayter

[Neil Williams]

On 2016-09-28 10:02:00 +0000, tim... said:

> can your box really not do that?
>
> you need a better box

All PVR boxes have a limited number of tuners, usually 2 though some
may have more. If you are recording 2 programmes, you can't watch
another one live. You can of course watch a recorded or streamed
programme because that doesn't require a tuner, and if you have a tuner
in your TV you can use that.

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 08:13:05 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> put finger to keyboard and typed:

>Given the quality of code I have seen over the years, I'd be curious to
>know if they incorporated a tried and tested postcode validation module,
>or - like most other muppets - try to roll their own. And get it wrong.

There's no reliable way to validate postcodes other than by checking
against the canonical postcode list supplied by Royal Mail. Regular
expressions don't work, because postcodes are not issued sequentially -
just because there's an AB1 2CD and AB1 2CF doesn't mean there's an AB1
2CE, for example, or any other combination of potentially valid codes.

You can use a regular expression to validate the form of a postcode, and
that's reasonably simple. But that tells you nothing about whether the
postcode entered actually exists. It merely excludes ones that cannot
possibly exist.

>Several times in my coding past, I have had to fix faulty validation
>routines - the best being one which refused to believe a *very* swanky
>address "didn't exist" (IIRC it was "WC1"*X* *XX" - which is a postcode,
>but doesn't look like one.

If you're using asterisks and X as placeholders for digits and/or letters,
then WC1*X* *XX doesn't exist as a valid postcode. But some private
developers try to extend the postcode system to give the impression of
having a unique postcode area for their development that isn't shared with
other, lesser dwellings. That's bollocks, and such invalid codes should,
correctly, be rejected by validation (or, if you want to be a little more
clever, at the risk of increasing the possibility of errors, edited into
the canonical form for storage).

The most common form of stupidity perpetuated by postcode validation
schemes is making them space-sensitive. In reality, the space is just a
handy visual separator. The underlying canonical postcode database is
actually a fixed-width 8 character string, with one to three spaces in the
middle depending on the length of the outbound part. But any valid postcode
can be formatted with any number of spaces, including zero. Since most
postcode lookup tables are stored in the single space version (and most
regular expression validators assume a single space), it's a necessary
(albeit trivial) task to reformat any entered string into the single space
form before attempting any validation. Not doing that, and then rejecting
the postcode because it doesn't validate, is just plain daft.

[R. Mark Clayton]

Yes it's a mess.

On the other hand just put "Elizabeth Windsor" "SW1 1AA".

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 11:18:49 +0100, ro...@hayter.org (Roger Hayter) put

finger to keyboard and typed:

>A practical limitation of satellite technology is that in order to
>record an indefinite number of channels at once you need an LNB with
>four independent outputs, and a set-top box with four inputs. If, as
>is common, you only have two inputs and are recording two programmes
>then it is quite likely that only fifty percent of other channels are
>available to play at the same time. Processing power in the box may
>limit things further, but the fact that each LNB channel has to be
>hard-switched to only a quarter of the satellite bandwidth is a
>technical limitation that cannot worked round.

That's not quite accurate. Satellite signals are polarised, which is why
you need at least two outputs in order to record and watch at the same time
- one output picks up the horizontal signal, and the other the vertical.
But the limitation on simultaneous recording is limited only by the number
of tuners, not outputs - multiple tuners can share the same signal from the
same output.

The four outputs from a quad LNB don't all go to the same box, they go to
two separate boxes (eg, Sky multiroom). Each individual box only has two
inputs.

Sky HD and Sky+ boxes both have four tuners, so you can record a maximum of
three channels while watching a fourth. The Sky Q Silver box (the latest
version) takes a different approach, by having separate tuners for
recording (four of them) and viewing/live streaming (three).

The limiation on simultaneous recording on Sky is, therefore, a factor of
the processing power of the box, not the number of cables to it from the
dish or the LNB on the dish.

mark

[Roland Perry]

In message <nsg528$pjp$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:10:51 on Wed, 28 Sep
2016, tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:

>>>> Just have people enter their license number and then match its use
>>>> against simultaneous IPs.
>>>
>>>I must admit to being very surprised they aren't going that way.
>>
>> Smartphones (or any appliance tethered to mobile broadband) change
>>their IP address a lot.
>
>I know
>
>that's why I restricted the comparison to IPs that were being used
>simultaneously

I don't understand how that would work. If my phone has an IP address
now, and gets a different one in a couple of minutes, and my old one is
given to you; what kind of unpicking algorithm are you expecting the
iPlayer to be using?
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <ln6nubld1vudpojim...@news.markshouse.net>, at
11:40:36 on Wed, 28 Sep 2016, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:

This is all terribly interesting, but my PVR is on Freeview[HD], not
Satellite.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <e51jsl...@mid.individual.net>, at 11:21:09 on Wed, 28

Sep 2016, Neil Williams <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> remarked:

>ll PVR boxes have a limited number of tuners, usually 2 though some
>may have more. If you are recording 2 programmes, you can't watch
>another one live. You can of course watch a recorded or streamed
>programme because that doesn't require a tuner, and if you have a tuner
>in your TV you can use that.

Some PVRs have other restrictions, based on the number of programmes
they can simultaneously code/decode.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <nsg3pp$lj0$1...@dont-email.me>, at 10:49:16 on Wed, 28 Sep

2016, tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>>>I don't imagine there will be an offence of "gaining access to
>>>iPlayer by false representation" (assuming you are otherwise
>>>accessing it legally)
>>
>> Comms Act s125? It will all depend on the definitions of
>>"Communications Service" I expect.
>>
>> That's if you don't think s363 applies, on account of the BBC
>>potentially saying you aren't authorised to use iPlayer unless you
>>give the correct information.
>
>I think the point is that noone is accessing a service that they are
>not entitled to access

Not if the entitlement is linked to correctly providing the information.

You may have a ticket that entitles you to get on a train, but you also
have an obligation to show it to a guard if he asks.

>They are simply lying about some trivial issue as they do so (a
>requirement that simply gives the supplier the ability to create value
>from that information).
>
>I fail to see how any contractual obligation to be honest can be
>enforced as a criminal act under any existing law.

Because being dishonest might mean you lose your entitlement (perhaps
time for you to check the iPlayer T&C in detail).
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <nsg4hl$ns4$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:02:00 on Wed, 28 Sep
2016, tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:

>>>> I think we will slowly revert back to TVs being just the physical
>>>>display
>>>> part - or at least there will still be a market for just panels.
>>>
>>>Many of us are already there. I watch live TV through a Youview box
>>>and other stuff via a Chromecast device. I don't use the television
>>>set as anything other than a large-screen monitor. It is tuned in
>>>because it was part of setup, but I don't use the tuner day to day.
>>
>> That's fine as long as you don't ant to watch live TV at the same
>>time the box is recording N channels as a PVR.
>
>can your box really not do that?
>
>you need a better box

It's got twin tuners, and if both are being used to record a programme,
you would need a third tuner (or, and I think this is better than most
such boxes) iirc I can watch a third channel live as long as it's on one
of the two multiplexes already tuned in to.

Getting a triple tuner box will simply increase N to 3.

Or does your box have one more tuner than there are multiplexes?
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <nsg462$mlf$1...@dont-email.me>, at 10:55:49 on Wed, 28 Sep
2016, tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:

>>>I would have thought "Smart" TVs would be capable of upgrading to cope
>>>with such issues ? I know my TVs iPlayer app was recently upgraded to
>>>deal with the licence question.
>>
>> This specific licence login process?
>
>Smart devices have to cope with the way that all of the on demand
>services change from time to time
>
>none of them are static, they all muck around with their interface (and
>IME not to the benefit of the user)
>
>As long as they have the capability to enter text in to a box (which
>they must do because all on demand services have "search" functions) it
>should be trivial to add this.

It's only trivial (and that's a much over-used word) if the manufacturer
still has the people/tools/inclination to produce an update for his
equipment.
--
Roland Perry

[tim...]

"Roger Hayter" <ro...@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:1mua9qp.1oesdkffgjb2N%ro...@hayter.org...

> tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:asvlJnXi...@perry.co.uk...
>> > In message <e4vlr6...@mid.individual.net>, at 17:42:14 on Tue, 27
>> > Sep
>> > 2016, Neil Williams <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> remarked:
>> >>> I think we will slowly revert back to TVs being just the physical
>> >>> display
>> >>> part - or at least there will still be a market for just panels.
>> >>
>> >>Many of us are already there. I watch live TV through a Youview box
>> >>and other stuff via a Chromecast device. I don't use the television
>> >>set as anything other than a large-screen monitor. It is tuned in
>> >>because it was part of setup, but I don't use the tuner day to day.
>> >
>> > That's fine as long as you don't ant to watch live TV at the same time
>> > the
>> > box is recording N channels as a PVR.
>>
>> can your box really not do that?
>>
>> you need a better box
>>
>> tim
>>
>>
> A practical limitation of satellite technology is that in order to
> record an indefinite number of channels at once you need an LNB with
> four independent outputs, and a set-top box with four inputs.

That wasn't anything to do with the claim

which was that the box cannot perform its normal operation of recording N
channels at once, whilst doing the full range of something else that the box
can do.

For example record two channels whilst replay an already recorded program,
which seems to be the basic requirement that all boxes meet. But stretching
that to replay a program from external media or the internet should also
always be possible.

As Roland suggests, not all boxes can manage that. But it isn't a
systematic PVR failure, just poor implementation by <inset name of relevant
manufacturer>

tim

[tim...]

"Neil Williams" <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e51jsl...@mid.individual.net...

> On 2016-09-28 10:02:00 +0000, tim... said:
>
>> can your box really not do that?
>>
>> you need a better box
>
> All PVR boxes have a limited number of tuners, usually 2 though some
> may have more. If you are recording 2 programmes, you can't watch
> another one live.

that wasn't the suggestion

it was watching it from the internet, that doesn't require a tuner

>You can of course watch a recorded or streamed
> programme because that doesn't require a tuner,

the claim was that it couldn't do that (and the claim may be right - some of
the real time software implementation on PVRs is appalling)

tim

[tim...]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:43Ed$15OK6...@perry.co.uk...

No

I thought that the reference above to Youview implied that the live TV came
from the internet

tim

[tim...]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:VHYWzW79...@perry.co.uk...

It's not done by the manufacturer, they have already done their work in
following the standard interface (which I would hope pr-empted this
possibility as it is generic across the whole DTV world, not just UK
specific).

The change to the interface is made by the streaming service provider and it
should just work on every device that operates, the now standard, interface.
No new software required

tim




> --
> Roland Perry

[tim...]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:gXLbHu4w...@perry.co.uk...

I'm trying to see how many IPs are used at the same time to establish
"sharing abuse"

I don't care that you change yours and that someone else has picked it up,
that second person will be validated against their login.

I understand that they will be legitimate usage of more than one IP at a
time, but I would bet that there will be zillions of customer who do not.
So they can be excluded and you concentrate your enforcement spend on the
subset that do.

tim

[tim...]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:7nxdrM5b...@perry.co.uk...

> In message <nsg3pp$lj0$1...@dont-email.me>, at 10:49:16 on Wed, 28 Sep 2016,
> tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>>>>I don't imagine there will be an offence of "gaining access to iPlayer
>>>>by false representation" (assuming you are otherwise accessing it
>>>>legally)
>>>
>>> Comms Act s125? It will all depend on the definitions of "Communications
>>> Service" I expect.
>>>
>>> That's if you don't think s363 applies, on account of the BBC
>>> potentially saying you aren't authorised to use iPlayer unless you give
>>> the correct information.
>>
>>I think the point is that noone is accessing a service that they are not
>>entitled to access
>
> Not if the entitlement is linked to correctly providing the information.

that can only ever be a contractual arrangement

and not conforming with a contract is not a criminal offence.

> You may have a ticket that entitles you to get on a train, but you also
> have an obligation to show it to a guard if he asks.

train contracts have different rules, try a more generic example.

>>They are simply lying about some trivial issue as they do so (a
>>requirement that simply gives the supplier the ability to create value
>>from that information).
>>
>>I fail to see how any contractual obligation to be honest can be enforced
>>as a criminal act under any existing law.
>
> Because being dishonest might mean you lose your entitlement

so how is that a criminal offence?

> (perhaps time for you to check the iPlayer T&C in detail).

Arguably, the requirement to supply personal details that are not absolutely
necessary for the provision of the service are in breach of the DPA and any
company who tried to enforce such would be on a sticky wicket

tim

[Roger Hayter]

In that case there must have been a breakthrough in LNB technology since
last time I looked. There used to be not only a switched voltage
signal to each LNB output but also an on/off pilot tone. Not only was
polarity switched but also a high and low band chosen. So each output
had to be in one of four states which each carried one quarter of the
available channels. This is still the arrangement for my Freesat box.

If Sky has cut this to each LNB channel carrying half the channels then
ieither they have succeeded in doubling the bandwidth of the LNB and its
output frequency or they only use half the channels available on the
satellite for Sky.

I wonder if this will also come to Freesat?


--

Roger Hayter

[Neil Williams]

On 2016-09-28 13:06:23 +0000, tim... said:

> I thought that the reference above to Youview implied that the live TV
> came from the internet

On Youview some channels do and some do not. I got the box because at
the time the software on all the other ones was utterly dire. Youview
was at the time the only non-satellite box with an almost-Sky+ quality
of UI.

[Roland Perry]

In message <nsgfbc$rqo$1...@dont-email.me>, at 14:06:23 on Wed, 28 Sep

2016, tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>>>>>> I think we will slowly revert back to TVs being just the physical
>>>>>>display
>>>>>> part - or at least there will still be a market for just panels.
>>>>>
>>>>>Many of us are already there. I watch live TV through a Youview box
>>>>>and other stuff via a Chromecast device. I don't use the television
>>>>>set as anything other than a large-screen monitor. It is tuned in
>>>>>because it was part of setup, but I don't use the tuner day to day.
>>>>
>>>> That's fine as long as you don't ant to watch live TV at the same
>>>>time the box is recording N channels as a PVR.
>>>
>>>can your box really not do that?
>>>
>>>you need a better box
>>
>> It's got twin tuners, and if both are being used to record a
>>programme, you would need a third tuner (or, and I think this is
>>better than most such boxes) iirc I can watch a third channel live as
>>long as it's on one of the two multiplexes already tuned in to.
>>
>> Getting a triple tuner box will simply increase N to 3.
>>
>> Or does your box have one more tuner than there are multiplexes?
>
>No
>
>I thought that the reference above to Youview implied that the live TV
>came from the internet

I don't have a Youview box.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <nsgfoo$td6$1...@dont-email.me>, at 14:13:31 on Wed, 28 Sep

2016, tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Just have people enter their license number and then match its use
>>>>>> against simultaneous IPs.
>>>>>
>>>>>I must admit to being very surprised they aren't going that way.
>>>>
>>>> Smartphones (or any appliance tethered to mobile broadband) change
>>>>their IP address a lot.
>>>
>>>I know
>>>
>>>that's why I restricted the comparison to IPs that were being used
>>>simultaneously
>>
>> I don't understand how that would work. If my phone has an IP address
>>now, and gets a different one in a couple of minutes, and my old one
>>is given to you; what kind of unpicking algorithm are you expecting
>>the iPlayer to be using?
>
>I'm trying to see how many IPs are used at the same time to establish
>"sharing abuse"
>
>I don't care that you change yours and that someone else has picked it
>up, that second person will be validated against their login.
>
>I understand that they will be legitimate usage of more than one IP at
>a time, but I would bet that there will be zillions of customer who do
>not.

Is that because you don't think many people access iPlayer by smartphone
or mobile broadband?

>So they can be excluded and you concentrate your enforcement spend on
>the subset that do.

You aren't saying what the enforcement rule is.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <nsgh88$sea$2...@dont-email.me>, at 13:40:24 on Wed, 28 Sep
2016, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:

>> If you're using asterisks and X as placeholders for digits and/or
>> letters,
>> then WC1*X* *XX doesn't exist as a valid postcode
>

>Oh yes it does !:
>
>Flat 4
>Laystall Court
>Mount Pleasant
>LONDON
>WC1X 0AH

You appear to be using the first two asterisks as placeholders for a
null.
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 13:40:24 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> put finger to keyboard and typed:

>On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 10:27:38 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> If you're using asterisks and X as placeholders for digits and/or
>> letters,

>> then WC1*X* *XX doesn't exist as a valid postcode
>
>Oh yes it does !:
>
>Flat 4
>Laystall Court
>Mount Pleasant
>LONDON
>WC1X 0AH

Which isn't what I said. I assumed you were using asterisks as placeholders
or wildcards. You now appear to be using them for emphasis. In the context
of a string with a specific format, that's not particularly helpful :-)

[Janet]

In article <e51jsl...@mid.individual.net>,
wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk says...

>
> On 2016-09-28 10:02:00 +0000, tim... said:
>
> > can your box really not do that?
> >
> > you need a better box
>
> All PVR boxes have a limited number of tuners, usually 2 though some
> may have more. If you are recording 2 programmes, you can't watch
> another one live.

? Our PVR will record two other programs as we watch a third program
live on TV . No problem at all.

Janet.

[Roland Perry]

In message <nsgq4d$sea$2...@dont-email.me>, at 16:11:58 on Wed, 28 Sep

2016, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
>>>> If you're using asterisks and X as placeholders for digits and/or
>>>> letters,
>>>> then WC1*X* *XX doesn't exist as a valid postcode
>>>
>>>Oh yes it does !:
>>>
>>>Flat 4 Laystall Court Mount Pleasant LONDON WC1X 0AH
>>
>> You appear to be using the first two asterisks as placeholders for a
>> null.
>

>Given the vagaries of internet grammar, I was trying to indicate that
>some postcodes have a letter after the first number which breaks a lot of
>validation which expects letter-[letter]-number-space-number-letter-
>letter.

That's bonkers. Half of London has postcodes of the form W1A 1AA or
EC1A 1AA.
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:11:58 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> put finger to keyboard and typed:

>On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:50:34 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> You appear to be using the first two asterisks as placeholders for a
>> null.
>

>Given the vagaries of internet grammar, I was trying to indicate that
>some postcodes have a letter after the first number which breaks a lot of
>validation which expects letter-[letter]-number-space-number-letter-
>letter.

That's very broken, then. Postcodes in the form AA9A 9AA have been around
for a very long time.

>
>The space is redundant, since postcodes should be parsed in reverse as:
>
>letter-letter-number (one digit)-number-[number]-[letter]-letter.

Which is equally wrong, because...

>But the postcode above breaks that too.

Indeed it does.

Postcodes are, from left to right:

Area - one or two letters
District - one or two digits, or one digit and one letter
Sector - one digit
Unit - two letters

(There are a very few exceptions to that, such as GIR 0AA, but one of the
advantages of the postcode structure is that it handles exceptions).

>Postcodes are a wonderful example of bad planning. One of my lecturers
>spent all the 1960s working on systems to read addresses. The story I
>heard was that the GPO management had insisted that postcodes be
>alphanumeric, which proved impossible as a general problem for 1960s OCR.

Alphanumeric is a lot easier for humans, though. And the Area part of the
code bears some relationship to the locality (it's an abbreviation of the
post town, in most cases), so you can "read" a postcode and know vaguely
where it is.

Pure numeric codes have different problems. One is that they are easily
mistaken for telephone numbers. Another is that there's no obvious visual
link to the location. And yet another is that if you issue them
sequentially, then neighbouring locations end up with non-sequential codes
as a result of new developments, but if you don't issue them sequentially
then you can't easily parse them into a generalised location without a
lookup table.

The biggest problem with postcodes is that they are too easy for humans to
use. That has made them widely used for applications for which they were
not intended, such as grouping addresses into statistical units (eg, for
calculating insurance risk). The use of postcodes for anything other than
addressing mail is always suboptimal.

[Roland Perry]

In message <nsgg02$u3p$1...@dont-email.me>, at 14:17:25 on Wed, 28 Sep

2016, tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:

>>>>>I don't imagine there will be an offence of "gaining access to
>>>>>iPlayer by false representation" (assuming you are otherwise
>>>>>accessing it legally)
>>>>
>>>> Comms Act s125? It will all depend on the definitions of
>>>>"Communications Service" I expect.
>>>>
>>>> That's if you don't think s363 applies, on account of the BBC
>>>>potentially saying you aren't authorised to use iPlayer unless you
>>>>give the correct information.
>>>
>>>I think the point is that noone is accessing a service that they are
>>>not entitled to access
>>
>> Not if the entitlement is linked to correctly providing the information.
>
>that can only ever be a contractual arrangement
>
>and not conforming with a contract is not a criminal offence.

I don't think TV licencing is a simple contract matter.

>> You may have a ticket that entitles you to get on a train, but you
>>also have an obligation to show it to a guard if he asks.
>
>train contracts have different rules,

So does TV licencing.

>try a more generic example.
>
>>>They are simply lying about some trivial issue as they do so (a
>>>requirement that simply gives the supplier the ability to create
>>>value from that information).
>>>
>>>I fail to see how any contractual obligation to be honest can be
>>>enforced as a criminal act under any existing law.
>>
>> Because being dishonest might mean you lose your entitlement
>
>so how is that a criminal offence?

TV licencing offence is what I'm suggesting it could be.

>> (perhaps time for you to check the iPlayer T&C in detail).
>
>Arguably, the requirement to supply personal details that are not
>absolutely necessary for the provision of the service are in breach of
>the DPA and any company who tried to enforce such would be on a sticky
>wicket

The BBC is a chartered public authority, not a company. Although I agree
with the general concern about over-providing of personal data, which is
reaching epidemic proportions.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <nsgfhf$sib$1...@dont-email.me>, at 14:09:38 on Wed, 28 Sep
2016, tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:

>> It's only trivial (and that's a much over-used word) if the
>>manufacturer still has the people/tools/inclination to produce an
>>update for his equipment.
>
>It's not done by the manufacturer, they have already done their work in
>following the standard interface (which I would hope pr-empted this
>possibility as it is generic across the whole DTV world, not just UK
>specific).
>
>The change to the interface is made by the streaming service provider
>and it should just work on every device that operates, the now
>standard, interface. No new software required

Smart TV's "pull" digital content from a range of services they choose
to currently support. Altering which services they decide to offer to
pull, is a function of the manufacturer's programming, as is a decision
about whether the appliance has enough smarts to handle the requirements
that service will place upon its functionality.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <nsggt8$sea$1...@dont-email.me>, at 13:34:32 on Wed, 28 Sep
2016, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:

>Despite being around 50 (:)) I refuse to drag the baggage of history with
>me through time that everyone else seems determined to do. Hence my
>oddball preference for email - invented in the 1970s over the telephone -
>invented in the *18*00s.

Actually it all dates back to the telegraph (1830's), with Twitter
postings (the text anyway) being curiously like telegrams.

The telephone was 1870's.
--
Roland Perry

[tim...]

"Janet" <nob...@home.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.32561aedd...@news.individual.net...

My sat box is an enigma

it will only record 2, show another, if both of the two channels being
recorded are from the same transponder

if the are on different transponders it wont let me view anything other than
the either of the two channels being recorded

I can't work that out

It either has the capability of decoding three channels at the same time
(from two transponders - one from one and two from the other), or it doesn't

I don't see how routing the two from the same transponder to the disk
recording part should result in any different use of internal resources that
routing one from each.

tim

[tim...]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:4dM91rAsd+6XFAA$@perry.co.uk...

the person you replied to with:

"That's fine as long as you don't want to watch live TV at the same time"

does

I accept that I then asked about "your" box ;-)

tim

[tim...]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:Db1Tk9RP...@perry.co.uk...

> In message <nsgfhf$sib$1...@dont-email.me>, at 14:09:38 on Wed, 28 Sep 2016,
> tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>
>>> It's only trivial (and that's a much over-used word) if the manufacturer
>>> still has the people/tools/inclination to produce an update for his
>>> equipment.
>>
>>It's not done by the manufacturer, they have already done their work in
>>following the standard interface (which I would hope pr-empted this
>>possibility as it is generic across the whole DTV world, not just UK
>>specific).
>>
>>The change to the interface is made by the streaming service provider and
>>it should just work on every device that operates, the now standard,
>>interface. No new software required
>
> Smart TV's "pull" digital content from a range of services they choose to
> currently support.

It was yes

but the trend is to move that into a service layer

during the Olympics I got an extra service offered, without a firmware
download (and lost it at the end - without one)

I accept that the firmware has to manage any differences in encoding between
the various streams, but I would hope that the trend is for those to
converge as well.

> Altering which services they decide to offer to pull, is a function of the
> manufacturer's programming, as is a decision

see above

tim

[tim...]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:HC3CCF$BZ+6...@perry.co.uk...

> In message <nsgfoo$td6$1...@dont-email.me>, at 14:13:31 on Wed, 28 Sep 2016,
> tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Just have people enter their license number and then match its use
>>>>>>> against simultaneous IPs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I must admit to being very surprised they aren't going that way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Smartphones (or any appliance tethered to mobile broadband) change
>>>>> their IP address a lot.
>>>>
>>>>I know
>>>>
>>>>that's why I restricted the comparison to IPs that were being used
>>>>simultaneously
>>>
>>> I don't understand how that would work. If my phone has an IP address
>>> now, and gets a different one in a couple of minutes, and my old one is
>>> given to you; what kind of unpicking algorithm are you expecting the
>>> iPlayer to be using?
>>
>>I'm trying to see how many IPs are used at the same time to establish
>>"sharing abuse"
>>
>>I don't care that you change yours and that someone else has picked it up,
>>that second person will be validated against their login.
>>
>>I understand that they will be legitimate usage of more than one IP at a
>>time, but I would bet that there will be zillions of customer who do not.
>
> Is that because you don't think many people access iPlayer by smartphone
> or mobile broadband?

It's because I don't think that there will be a large percentage of license
holders who will use their "login" to access streamed TV from more than one
place at the same time.

Multiple use would require:

a multi person household watching TV
more than one person from that household viewing streamed media rather that
broadcast TV.
use of more than one access point by users from that household (I assume,
perhaps wrongly that multiple access via the same hub would show the same
IP)

>>So they can be excluded and you concentrate your enforcement spend on the
>>subset that do.
>
> You aren't saying what the enforcement rule is.

That's all TBD, isn't it. Even the BBC don't know this.

It's irrelevant to the issue of discarding the almost-guaranteed
non-infringers from your enforcement

tim

[Adam Funk]

On 2016-09-27, Jethro_uk wrote:

> Interestingly, I have just been signed out of the BBC site, and
> encouraged to sign in again to "bbc.com" rather than ".co.uk"
>
> At which point I was warned I would have to provide more details and was
> given an option to cancel if I didn't wan to.
>
> I chose to process and was greeted with a request for a postcode.
> Literally. Just one word "postcode". So I put a postcode in, and
> proceeded.
>
> The postcode I used was SW1 1AA - which was my default testing postcode,
> before I discovered the Royal Mail (like Ofcom for phone numbers) has
> issued some dummy postcodes.

Where is that? I know about Ofcom's "Telephone Numbers for drama use"
page, but I couldn't search up anything similar for postcodes.


> Not quite sure this is what was intended, but I have complied.

Ha! Good one.

[tim...]

"Jethro_uk" <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:nsggt8$sea$1...@dont-email.me...
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 11:09:06 +0100, tim... wrote:
>
>> "Jethro_uk" <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
>> news:nsg0cd$sea$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 09:12:27 +0100, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>>
>>>> Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <e4vooc...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:31:56 on Tue, 27

>>>>> Sep 2016, Neil Williams <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>

>>>>> >> That's fine as long as you don't ant to watch live TV at the same
>>>>> >> time the box is recording N channels as a PVR.
>>>>> >

>>>>> >I don't really use the PVR feature any more, I use the players.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's so much faster to use a PVR,
>>>>> It covers all channels with one "app",
>>>>> It covers channels that don't have an "app",
>>>>> It automatically reminds you the programmes you wanted to see
>>>>> (especially if a series),
>>>>> You can continue watching where you left off (some apps do that as
>>>>> well)
>>>>> You can skip the adverts,
>>>>> And most of all, the programmes don't rot away after
>>>>> an absurdly short period of time.
>>>>
>>>> OTOH, there is a rapidly increasing number of programmes which are
>>>> only available via 'catch-up apps' and are never (or only partially)
>>>> broadcast.
>>>
>>> BBC3 ?
>>
>> If it's any good it finds it's way onto BBC2
>>
>> tim

>
> Despite being around 50 (:)) I refuse to drag the baggage of history with
> me through time that everyone else seems determined to do. Hence my
> oddball preference for email - invented in the 1970s over the telephone -
> invented in the *18*00s.
>

> similarly, I really have no time for the concept (conceit) that "BBC1" is
> somehow different culturally to "BBC2" "BBC3" or whatever.
> They are just channels that show shit. The whole edifice is shown for the
> farce it is when fucking Wimbledon (or whatever) overruns, and - despite
> having enough channels for a small failed state - the BBC insist it has
> to stay on BBC2.

OK

If it's any good it might find its way to BBC1

is that better :-)

tim

[Roland Perry]

In message <nsiqt7$sea$2...@dont-email.me>, at 10:37:27 on Thu, 29 Sep
2016, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:

>> Actually it all dates back to the telegraph (1830's), with Twitter
>> postings (the text anyway) being curiously like telegrams.
>

>Or medieval texts, where every character on vellum could be costed

As we are discussing electronic services, vellum is irrelevant.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <nsg0u4$sea$1...@dont-email.me>, at 09:01:56 on Wed, 28 Sep
2016, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:

>>>>>>>> On what platform?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>their website.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What hardware platform - the Smart TV you mentioned earlier??
>>>>>
>>>>>No, my windows 7 PC - I was already logged in ...
>>>>
>>>> Let us know when any of this appears on your Smart TV, after all it
>>>> was you who started that hare running.
>>>
>>>Currently I'm up to date - I may have an hour at the weekend. If the
>>>inbuilt LG app is dead, I have the TiVo (which being on subscription
>>>should be kept up to date. If Virgin decide they no longer wish to use
>>>iPlayer as a selling point of TiVo, it may be the last reason I need to
>>>lose the TiVo).
>>>
>>>Failing that, I can either: stream a program on bbc.co.uk, or use the
>>>iPlayer app (one presumes the BBC will keep these up to date in
>>>lockstep)
>>>on my tablet and cast to the big TV screen.
>>>
>>>Notice I haven't even thought about the iPlayer feature on my blu-ray
>>>player :)
>>
>> None of that elaborates upon:

>>
>> I would have thought "Smart" TVs would be capable of upgrading
>> to cope with such issues ? I know my TVs iPlayer app was
>> recently upgraded to deal with the licence question
>>

>> Was that an app inside your LG TV, and how do you know it copes with the
>> postcode question already?
>
>
>Sorry there are 2 separate issues here:
>
>1) the BBC *website* yesterday required me to re-login *and* a postcode.
>
>2) My LG TV has an "app" which accesses the BBC iPlayer. A couple of
>weeks ago this app popped up a question "Do you have a TV licence" before
>allowing me to use it.

OK, that's my fault. I didn't read that to mean literally "ask the
question - Do You Have a Licence", rather it being capable of managing a
new user interface into which you have to type your account details.

(Although I'm still interested in whether a typical smart TV/Box will
cache/remember those account details).

>I can't be exact as to how that happened, but given that the TV still
>receives firmware updates (the last being a month ago) it could have
>been pushed with that.

Are they pushed, or does the TV poll a "pull" service? If they are
pushed, how does the TV manufacturer know where to push them.

>I'm not au fait with the architecture of Smart TVs ... however I suspect
>- like Android - it's possible that apps are capable of being updated
>without a firmware upgrade being needed too.

This is where we definitely get into the territory of "this app doesn't
work with your new firmware". Whether that latter is a version of
Android or a version of Firefox.

--
Roland Perry

[Sara Merriman]

In article <id9vbdx...@news.ducksburg.com>, Adam Funk

<a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

> >
> > The postcode I used was SW1 1AA - which was my default testing postcode,
> > before I discovered the Royal Mail (like Ofcom for phone numbers) has
> > issued some dummy postcodes.
>
> Where is that?

Buckingham Palace

[Roland Perry]

In message <nsj629$85o$2...@dont-email.me>, at 13:47:54 on Thu, 29 Sep

2016, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:

>>>> Actually it all dates back to the telegraph (1830's), with Twitter
>>>> postings (the text anyway) being curiously like telegrams.
>>>
>>>Or medieval texts, where every character on vellum could be costed
>>
>> As we are discussing electronic services, vellum is irrelevant.
>

>Not really.
>
>It was the cost of vellum (and ink) which led to abbreviations being
>extant in medieval literature (and Roman carving, I believe, where you
>are paying per letter).
>
>And "electronic services" is not a synonym for "free". Twitter was
>originally based around SMS messages which in some configuration have a
>very real cost - 10p per SMS back in the day.
>
>Therefore in all cases there was an incentive to reduce characters (or
>words for telegrams) which would lead to a reduction in cost.

The synergy isn't primarily to do with cost, but the limited number of
characters. Limited in telegrams by cost, but SMS and Twitter by the
technology.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <nsin57$ith$1...@dont-email.me>, at 10:31:54 on Thu, 29 Sep
2016, tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>

>"That's fine as long as you don't want to watch live TV at the same time"

Through the same box.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <nsio1h$lg1$1...@dont-email.me>, at 10:46:59 on Thu, 29 Sep
2016, tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:

>> Is that because you don't think many people access iPlayer by
>>smartphone or mobile broadband?
>
>It's because I don't think that there will be a large percentage of
>license holders who will use their "login" to access streamed TV from
>more than one place at the same time.

What's a "place"? Surely you don't still think IP addresses define a
place?
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 14:52:39 +0100, Sara Merriman
<sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> put finger to keyboard and typed:

>In article <id9vbdx...@news.ducksburg.com>, Adam Funk
><a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > The postcode I used was SW1 1AA - which was my default testing postcode,
>> > before I discovered the Royal Mail (like Ofcom for phone numbers) has
>> > issued some dummy postcodes.
>>
>> Where is that?
>
>Buckingham Palace

I think Adam was asking where the list of dummy postcodes is :-)

And SW1 1AA isn't Buck House. That's SW1A 1AA, which is a different
postcode. SW1 1AA is currently unassigned. It has been a valid postcode in
the past, but not since at least as early as 1996.

[Sara Merriman]

In article <jpaqub9fb72m3vree...@news.markshouse.net>,

Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 14:52:39 +0100, Sara Merriman
> <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> put finger to keyboard and typed:
>
> >In article <id9vbdx...@news.ducksburg.com>, Adam Funk
> ><a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > The postcode I used was SW1 1AA - which was my default testing postcode,
> >> > before I discovered the Royal Mail (like Ofcom for phone numbers) has
> >> > issued some dummy postcodes.
> >>
> >> Where is that?
> >
> >Buckingham Palace
>
> I think Adam was asking where the list of dummy postcodes is :-)

Hah! Yes that would make more sense.

>
> And SW1 1AA isn't Buck House. That's SW1A 1AA, which is a different
> postcode. SW1 1AA is currently unassigned. It has been a valid postcode in
> the past, but not since at least as early as 1996.
>

Then I was wrong twice - I must be getting old :)

[Adam Funk]

On 2016-09-29, Sara Merriman wrote:

> In article <id9vbdx...@news.ducksburg.com>, Adam Funk
><a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > The postcode I used was SW1 1AA - which was my default testing postcode,
>> > before I discovered the Royal Mail (like Ofcom for phone numbers) has
>> > issued some dummy postcodes.
>>
>> Where is that?
>
> Buckingham Palace

Doh! I meant "Where is that list of dummy postcodes?"!

[Sara Merriman]

In article <s2nvbdx...@news.ducksburg.com>, Adam Funk

<a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

> On 2016-09-29, Sara Merriman wrote:
>
> > In article <id9vbdx...@news.ducksburg.com>, Adam Funk
> ><a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > The postcode I used was SW1 1AA - which was my default testing postcode,
> >> > before I discovered the Royal Mail (like Ofcom for phone numbers) has
> >> > issued some dummy postcodes.
> >>
> >> Where is that?
> >
> > Buckingham Palace
>
> Doh! I meant "Where is that list of dummy postcodes?"!
>

Yes, I realised that later - sorry.

[tim...]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:+rvcIjnl...@perry.co.uk...

http://dtg.org.uk/dtg/download_schedule.html

The TV knows to "look" for them


tim

[tim...]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:CLhTgYqf...@perry.co.uk...

That was taken as read

Why did you post it?

tim

[tim...]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:3r2eYBpB...@perry.co.uk...

At any one point in time, surely they do (even if you can't absolutely pin
point it)

tim

[tim...]

"Jethro_uk" <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message

news:nsj21d$85o$1...@dont-email.me...

> It's just "The BBC" to me. Like "ITV" or "Sky".

Many people consider a Sky channel to be anything that comes into their
house via a satellite

even if it's:

a) BBC output
b) via a Freesat box

tim

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:44:18 +0100, "tim..." <tims_n...@yahoo.com> put

finger to keyboard and typed:

>

Not if it's merely the public side of CG-NAT. Which a lot of mobile IP
addresses are.

(Well, it is a location, but only of the provider, which is not helpful for
determining the location of the end user).

[Roland Perry]

In message <nsjg5h$9p7$1...@dont-email.me>, at 17:38:43 on Thu, 29 Sep
2016, tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:

>Many people consider a Sky channel to be anything that comes into their
>house via a satellite

Other satellites exist.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <nsjgfv$b2b$1...@dont-email.me>, at 17:44:18 on Thu, 29 Sep

2016, tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:

>>>> Is that because you don't think many people access iPlayer by
>>>>smartphone or mobile broadband?
>>>
>>>It's because I don't think that there will be a large percentage of
>>>license holders who will use their "login" to access streamed TV from
>>>more than one place at the same time.
>>
>> What's a "place"? Surely you don't still think IP addresses define a
>>place?
>
>At any one point in time, surely they do (even if you can't absolutely
>pin point it)

How big a pin have you got? My home broadband IP address, despite being
static, resolves to "somewhere within 100km of Chelmsford, Essex", for
the majority of geo[so called]"location" services. Chelmsford is 90
minutes drive away.

If I'm using my Smartphone the location is more precise than that, but
when walking around on mobile data or hopping from wifi to wifi the IP
address will be changing many times an hour; or if I'm on one of the
local buses using their free-wifi, not only is *my* location changing
rapidly, but the IP resolves to a bus depot in the middle of nowhere.

And not just *my* IP address; in the case of wifi hotspots: everyone
logged in via either that cafe or on one of that firm's buses.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <nsjgdn$ap4$1...@dont-email.me>, at 17:43:06 on Thu, 29 Sep

2016, tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:

>>>"That's fine as long as you don't want to watch live TV at the same time"
>>
>> Through the same box.
>
>That was taken as read
>
>Why did you post it?

Because it was true. And since then it's been suggested that if the box
is maxed-out one could watch live TV on a different appliance, but
that's taking the mickey.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <nsjgbu$ajh$1...@dont-email.me>, at 17:42:09 on Thu, 29 Sep
2016, tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:

>> Are they pushed, or does the TV poll a "pull" service? If they are
>>pushed, how does the TV manufacturer know where to push them.
>
>http://dtg.org.uk/dtg/download_schedule.html
>
>The TV knows to "look" for them

As I suspected, the TV polls a "pull an update" service. I wonder if it
does that even if its "AV" selection is permanently pointing at the feed
from a PVR box?
--
Roland Perry

[Adam Funk]

On 2016-09-29, Sara Merriman wrote:

> In article <s2nvbdx...@news.ducksburg.com>, Adam Funk
><a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-09-29, Sara Merriman wrote:
>>
>> > In article <id9vbdx...@news.ducksburg.com>, Adam Funk
>> ><a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > The postcode I used was SW1 1AA - which was my default testing postcode,
>> >> > before I discovered the Royal Mail (like Ofcom for phone numbers) has
>> >> > issued some dummy postcodes.
>> >>
>> >> Where is that?
>> >
>> > Buckingham Palace
>>
>> Doh! I meant "Where is that list of dummy postcodes?"!
>>
> Yes, I realised that later - sorry.

That's OK, it brought some levity into the group.
:-)

[Sara Merriman]

In article <mim1cdx...@news.ducksburg.com>, Adam Funk

Always glad to raise a smile!

[Roland Perry]

In message <nsl8gk$85o$7...@dont-email.me>, at 08:41:56 on Fri, 30 Sep
2016, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:

>>>> Are they pushed, or does the TV poll a "pull" service? If they are
>>>>pushed, how does the TV manufacturer know where to push them.
>>>
>>>http://dtg.org.uk/dtg/download_schedule.html
>>>
>>>The TV knows to "look" for them
>>
>> As I suspected, the TV polls a "pull an update" service. I wonder if it
>> does that even if its "AV" selection is permanently pointing at the feed
>> from a PVR box?
>

>Our TV does not have and has never had an aerial feed. It's internet,
>LAN, TiVo, media player, blu-ray.

An Internet-connected TV could "call home", and not just for updates;
I've seen suggestions some send the manufacturer details of what you've
been watching.
--
Roland Perry

[Neil Williams]

On 2016-09-30 09:15:44 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> An Internet-connected TV could "call home", and not just for updates;
> I've seen suggestions some send the manufacturer details of what you've
> been watching.

Sky+ definitely does, that's why the phone line is mandatory.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

[Roland Perry]

In message <nslc1h$85o$8...@dont-email.me>, at 09:42:09 on Fri, 30 Sep
2016, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:

>How would it do that for content supplied via the HDMI cable ?

You can't send what you haven't got, I didn't say "sends everything".

>However, you have now prompted a subsequent question about content viewed
>via the TVs apps - let's say iPlayer.
>
>Does the TV (LG) app have access to details of what is going on inside
>the iPlayer app. And - if it does - what is the BBCs position/take
>regarding this ?
>
>Also what are the security implications ? If the TV manufacturer app is
>that exposed, how easy would it be for ne'er do wells to hack it, take
>control and insert their own stream instead ?

I've not looked closely enough to be able to answer.
--
Roland Perry

[tim...]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:rR052RPJ...@perry.co.uk...

> In message <nsjgfv$b2b$1...@dont-email.me>, at 17:44:18 on Thu, 29 Sep 2016,
> tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>
>>>>> Is that because you don't think many people access iPlayer by
>>>>> smartphone or mobile broadband?
>>>>
>>>>It's because I don't think that there will be a large percentage of
>>>>license holders who will use their "login" to access streamed TV from
>>>>more than one place at the same time.
>>>
>>> What's a "place"? Surely you don't still think IP addresses define a
>>> place?
>>
>>At any one point in time, surely they do (even if you can't absolutely pin
>>point it)
>
> How big a pin have you got? My home broadband IP address, despite being
> static, resolves to "somewhere within 100km of Chelmsford, Essex", for the
> majority of geo[so called]"location" services. Chelmsford is 90 minutes
> drive away.

That's irrelevant.

I'm not suggesting that the licensing authority can use the IP to locate you
so that they can place a summons in your hand

I am suggesting that they can use IP addresses to determine how many unique
"locations" a particular account is being used from.

For the purposes of enforcement, if someone is only ever using their account
from one location at a time (even if that might be a different IP address
per access) they can move on to the next person. They may be infringing
users, but I would suggest that the chances of it being possible for someone
who was stealing the use of someone else's licence details (with the
collusion of the licence holder or otherwise) could contrive to always only
access it whilst the real owner was not, is tiny.

OTOH If someone is using the same account from multiple locations you put
that person in the pile for extra scrutiny.

Whilst there are bound to be genuine cases where people have used the same
account from more than one location legitimately, I would hazard a guess
that of the people (accounts) who do this frequently, you will find the vast
majority of infringers.

Remember, the licensing authority have your address in the license database.
And from that address they can establish the type of household from
publically available data, and therefore make a guess as to whether this
extra usage is likely to be legitimate. And then if they decide that it's
more likely than not to be infringing usage they have the address of a door
to knock on to ask further questions.

Whether public authorities should use such data in this way to chase "minor"
criminals does appear to be something that the privacy police dislike, but I
personally have no problem with it.

> If I'm using my Smartphone the location is more precise than that, but
> when walking around on mobile data or hopping from wifi to wifi the IP
> address will be changing many times an hour; or if I'm on one of the local
> buses using their free-wifi, not only is *my* location changing rapidly,
> but the IP resolves to a bus depot in the middle of nowhere.

I have already explained. It doesn't matter that the address changes from
time to time (except, of course, in the difficulty of collating the data).
What matters is that the same account is being used from more than one IP at
the SAME time.

It is also irrelevant that more than one person resolves to the same
address, if they have logged in as different users (of course this does give
the loophole of more than one person resolving to the same address from the
same account even though that are different real world locations, but I
think that state of affairs will be difficult to engineer deliberately)

>
> And not just *my* IP address; in the case of wifi hotspots: everyone
> logged in via either that cafe or on one of that firm's buses.

but they will have logged into iPlayer with different licence details, that
is the crucial point

tim

[tim...]

"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:04jqubds8dmv520pd...@news.markshouse.net...

I didn't know that, but it's unimportant

what matters is uses of one account using multiple IPs.

not single IPs being used by many users each logged into a separate
accounts.

tim

[tim...]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:DG+DTPRg$h7XFA$H...@perry.co.uk...

It's irrelevant what input is feed to the display screen

All that matters is whether the TV has an aerial plugged in and a tuner
capable of receiving the frequency that the download is BC on (which you
will see from the page I posted is PSB1 - the one that BBC1 is on).

When the TV is in standby overnight, it will automatically switch to that
frequency to look for an update broadcast.

What happens if you complete switch your set off when not in use, I don't
know

tim