Re: pptp-based vpn

[Chris Bannister]

On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 09:27:46PM +0100, Joe wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:54:19 +1200
> Chris Bannister  wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:32:37PM +0100, Joe wrote:
> > > A nation of supermarket-keepers.
> > 
> > Why does there seem to be preocupation with hyphens these days, or am
> > I imagining things?
> 
> It was a play on 'shopkeepers', all one word, so a hyphen gave a better
> approximation.
> 
> Hyphens are dying out, they used to be much more common, and probably
> when Napoleon was first reported, 'shop-keepers' would have been used.

TBH, I'm noticing them all over the place, and I'm sure they weren't
used as often as they are now. I'm even seeing it being used separating
'no one' *shudder* :)

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Joe]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:54:19 +1200
Chris Bannister  wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:32:37PM +0100, Joe wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 10:43:00 +0200
> > Tony van der Hoff  wrote:
> > 
> > > On 13/08/15 03:51, Martin McCormick wrote:
> > > > For those in the UK, We in North America could
> > > > occasionally receive BBC1 from transmitters across the British
> > > > Aisles when Solar activity was high. 
> > > 
> > > British Aisles??
> > > 
> > 
> > A nation of supermarket-keepers.
> 
> Why does there seem to be preocupation with hyphens these days, or am
> I imagining things?
> 

It was a play on 'shopkeepers', all one word, so a hyphen gave a better
approximation.

Hyphens are dying out, they used to be much more common, and probably
when Napoleon was first reported, 'shop-keepers' would have been used.

-- 
Joe

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Chris Bannister]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:32:37PM +0100, Joe wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 10:43:00 +0200
> Tony van der Hoff  wrote:
> 
> > On 13/08/15 03:51, Martin McCormick wrote:
> > >   For those in the UK, We in North America could
> > > occasionally receive BBC1 from transmitters across the British
> > > Aisles when Solar activity was high. 
> > 
> > British Aisles??
> > 
> 
> A nation of supermarket-keepers.

Why does there seem to be preocupation with hyphens these days, or am I
imagining things?

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Lisi Reisz]

On Saturday 15 August 2015 21:57:24 Brad Rogers wrote:
> Aha!  My mistake - it hasn't come into effect yet.  See;
> y-over-75s-tv-licences>
>
> In a nutshell, there are plans to introduce legislation to close the
> catchup tv loophole within a year, along with a few other changes to
> licensing rules.

Not just not come into effect.  Not yet been legislated.  Let alone tested in 
the courts. 
Lisi

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Brad Rogers]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 08:46:34 -0500
David Wright  wrote:

Hello David,

>Please give a source for this change. It appears to be contradicted 4
>times at

I saw/heard it on the news a while back.  Or at least, that's what I
think I heard.

{time passes}

Aha!  My mistake - it hasn't come into effect yet.  See;


In a nutshell, there are plans to introduce legislation to close the
catchup tv loophole within a year, along with a few other changes to
licensing rules.

-- 
 Regards  _
 / )   "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)radnever immediately apparent"
Love is a temple, love is a shrine
You Have Placed A Chill In My Heart - Eurythmics


pgpECBsyqZRfH.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: pptp-based vpn

[David Wright]

Quoting Brad Rogers (b...@fineby.me.uk):
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:08:30 +0100
> Martin Read  wrote:
> 
> Hello Martin,
> 
> >they are being broadcast", but rather "you *use* some piece of
> >equipment to watch or record television programmes as they are being
> >broadcast".
> 
> That's changed recently.  The "as they are being broadcast" part has
> been removed.  The effect being that, even if you only watch catchup tv,
> you still need a license.

Please give a source for this change. It appears to be contradicted 4 times at
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one?WT.ac=home_puc_check
again at
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/technology--devices-and-online-top8
and at least 3 times in the FAQ at the foot of that page.

Perhaps the fat pipe has gone down and I'm inspecting cached pages.

Cheers,
David.

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Brad Rogers]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:08:30 +0100
Martin Read  wrote:

Hello Martin,

>they are being broadcast", but rather "you *use* some piece of
>equipment to watch or record television programmes as they are being
>broadcast".

That's changed recently.  The "as they are being broadcast" part has
been removed.  The effect being that, even if you only watch catchup tv,
you still need a license.

-- 
 Regards  _
 / )   "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)radnever immediately apparent"
This disease is catching
Into The Valley - Skids


pgpRT6EbR49sr.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Joe]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 00:00:57 +0100
Brian  wrote:


> 
> If the argument is to have non-payment of a licence a civil offence
> I'm not opposed to that. The burden of proof would be lower in that
> case, of course.
> 

This seems likely to happen fairly soon.

-- 
Joe

Re: pptp-based vpn

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

[...]

> > I had a compassion bypass operation a few years ago. Sorry. :)
> 
> And a tolerance one.;-)  But I in fact outlined the monetary and societal 
> cost, and therefore inefficiency.  You don't need compassion to understand 
> that, just a calculator.

Lisi -- you made my day, thanks for that :-D

- -- t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlXO3UEACgkQBcgs9XrR2kY3hgCaA/0Huv067uCsuaerKwlWvp/N
wtsAnjXHgyu09RQh4HvkfSgapc0XygAY
=WJW/
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Lisi Reisz]

On Saturday 15 August 2015 00:00:57 Brian wrote:
> On Fri 14 Aug 2015 at 22:52:05 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Thursday 13 August 2015 09:38:03 Brian wrote:
> > > On Wed 12 Aug 2015 at 20:04:41 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > > > Quoting Brian (a...@cityscape.co.uk):
> > > > > On Wed 12 Aug 2015 at 16:57:33 +0100, Martin Smith wrote:
> > > > > > On 12/08/2015 14:56, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > > > > >The care alone, even were there no societal cost, costs several
> > > > > > > orders of magnitude more money than the £145.50 cost of a TV
> > > > > > > licence.  The trial alone, too, will have cost more than that!
> > > > > > > Then there is the cost of keeping her in prison.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > that is the problem, we have to punish sinners, we are after all
> > > > > > obsessed opinion.
> > > > > > I am led to believe it demonstrates our righteousness, but that
> > > > > > is not my> opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's called upholding and enforcing the law of the country, not
> > > > > trangressing the will of some other entity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Incidentally. The tale you quoted and replied to is based on "When
> > > > > she goes to prison for non-payment of her licence". This cannot
> > > > > happen. The maximum penalty is a fine.
> > > >
> > > > This may well be true. I'm not a lawyer: I don't know. However, the
> > > > public perception is that you *can* be imprisoned and so it colours
> > > > discussion of the licence fee. For example, here is a quotation by
> > > > the
> > >
> > > Incorrect statements colouring discussion hampers fruitful discussion.
> > >
> > > > Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, someone involved at
> > > > the highest level with the licence fee problem:
> > > >
> > > > “It's actually worse than a poll tax because under the poll tax, if
> > > > you were on a very low income you would get a considerable subsidy,”
> > > > he said.
> > > >
> > > > “The BBC licence fee, there is no means-tested element whatsoever; it
> > > > doesn't matter how poor you are, you pay £145.50 and go to prison if
> > > > you don't pay it.”
> > >
> > > Both the Secretary of State and non-lawyers have access to
> > >
> > >   http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/363
> >
> > Yes, but they also have access to common sense.
> >
> > You cannot be sent to prison for non-payment of the licence.  But you can
> > be sent prison for non-payment of the fine for non-payment of the
> > licence.  So in effect many are sent to prison not for non-payment, if
> > you wish to quibble (and this is not a court of law, where one has to
> > quibble), but because they haven't got any money and haven't paid.  It is
> > not too great a stretch of the imagination and language to call that
> > going to prison for non-payment of the licence.
>
> > If convicted, you will get a criminal record,
> > 
> > http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/24/in-court-non-payment-tv-li
> >cence-television-desperate-cases
>
> Obviously. Whether it is ever disclosed is another matter. Perhaps if an
> application to become Director General of the BBC was made it would be.

That is just when it wouldn't! ;-)
>
> > Then:
> > 
> >  Culture Secretary Sajid Javid reports that 10% of magistrate court cases
> > are for non-payment of the BBC licence fee. Non-payment is a criminal
> > offence, punishable by a fine of up to £1,000. Every week about 3,000
> > people are fined for non-payment, and *about one person a week is
> > jailed for non-payment of the fine.* (my stars)
> >
> > Women make up about 70% of those prosecuted and convicted, and half of
> > those jailed for not paying the fine. 
>
> > unable to pay the fine for
> > the same reason they couldn’t afford the licence fee; they don’t have the
> > money.
> > 
> > http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/media-culture/non-payment-of-bbc-licence-fe
> >e-accounts-for-10-of-prosecutions/
> >
> > Young single mothers are sent to prison because they have not got the
> > money to pay their TV licences, with the consequences I have already
> > described.
>
> I had a compassion bypass operation a few years ago. Sorry. :)

And a tolerance one.;-)  But I in fact outlined the monetary and societal 
cost, and therefore inefficiency.  You don't need compassion to understand 
that, just a calculator.

Lisi

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Brian]

On Fri 14 Aug 2015 at 23:29:24 +0100, Martin Read wrote:

> On 14/08/15 23:03, Brian wrote:
> >On Fri 14 Aug 2015 at 09:08:30 +0100, Martin Read wrote:
> >>And yes, the law does distinguish between broadcast programmes and live
> >>internet streaming (e.g. the BBC's live coverage of the World Snooker
> >
> >No it doesn't. Watching BBC News being streamed live with get_iplayer is
> >regarded as equivalent to receiving the same channel from a satellite or
> >terrestrial transmitter.
> 
> Please read *the entirety* of the sentence you split in half to tell me I'm
> wrong, not just the first half.

You are right. Sorry. That part of my reply was inexcusable.

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Brian]

On Fri 14 Aug 2015 at 22:52:05 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Thursday 13 August 2015 09:38:03 Brian wrote:
> > On Wed 12 Aug 2015 at 20:04:41 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > > Quoting Brian (a...@cityscape.co.uk):
> > > > On Wed 12 Aug 2015 at 16:57:33 +0100, Martin Smith wrote:
> > > > > On 12/08/2015 14:56, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > > > >The care alone, even were there no societal cost, costs several
> > > > > > orders of magnitude more money than the £145.50 cost of a TV
> > > > > > licence.  The trial alone, too, will have cost more than that! 
> > > > > > Then there is the cost of keeping her in prison.
> > > > >
> > > > > that is the problem, we have to punish sinners, we are after all
> > > > > obsessed opinion.
> > > > > I am led to believe it demonstrates our righteousness, but that is
> > > > > not my> opinion.
> > > >
> > > > It's called upholding and enforcing the law of the country, not
> > > > trangressing the will of some other entity.
> > > >
> > > > Incidentally. The tale you quoted and replied to is based on "When
> > > > she goes to prison for non-payment of her licence". This cannot
> > > > happen. The maximum penalty is a fine.
> > >
> > > This may well be true. I'm not a lawyer: I don't know. However, the
> > > public perception is that you *can* be imprisoned and so it colours
> > > discussion of the licence fee. For example, here is a quotation by the
> >
> > Incorrect statements colouring discussion hampers fruitful discussion.
> >
> > > Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, someone involved at
> > > the highest level with the licence fee problem:
> > >
> > > “It's actually worse than a poll tax because under the poll tax, if
> > > you were on a very low income you would get a considerable subsidy,”
> > > he said.
> > >
> > > “The BBC licence fee, there is no means-tested element whatsoever; it
> > > doesn't matter how poor you are, you pay £145.50 and go to prison if
> > > you don't pay it.”
> >
> > Both the Secretary of State and non-lawyers have access to
> >
> >   http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/363
> 
> Yes, but they also have access to common sense.
> 
> You cannot be sent to prison for non-payment of the licence.  But you can be 
> sent prison for non-payment of the fine for non-payment of the licence.  So 
> in effect many are sent to prison not for non-payment, if you wish to quibble 
> (and this is not a court of law, where one has to quibble), but because they 
> haven't got any money and haven't paid.  It is not too great a stretch of the 
> imagination and language to call that going to prison for non-payment of the 
> licence.

It may not stretch the imagination but the penalty for non-payment of
fines is a separate issue and also part of living in a regulated society
ruled by law.

> Here is what the Guardian said about it fairly recently:
> 
> You cannot go to prison for non-payment of your licence fee, but you can be 
> jailed for not paying a fine imposed as punishment for not paying for a 
> licence, and in 2012, 50 people were imprisoned, up from 30 in 2009. Of 
> those, 49 were given a sentence of less than three months; one person was 
> given a sentence of somewhere between three and six months.
> 
> If convicted, you will get a criminal record,
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/24/in-court-non-payment-tv-licence-television-desperate-cases

Obviously. Whether it is ever disclosed is another matter. Perhaps if an
application to become Director General of the BBC was made it would be.

> Then:
> 
>  Culture Secretary Sajid Javid reports that 10% of magistrate court cases are 
> for non-payment of the BBC licence fee. Non-payment is a criminal offence, 
> punishable by a fine of up to £1,000. Every week about 3,000 people are fined 
> for non-payment, and *about one person a week is jailed for non-payment 
> of the fine.* (my stars)
> 
> Women make up about 70% of those prosecuted and convicted, and half of those 
> jailed for not paying the fine. When people fail to pay other utilities, such 
> as energy companies, they are guilty of a civil offence, not a criminal one, 
> and they cannot be prosecuted and fined for falling behind with their 
> payments. Civil action can be taken for recovery, but without fines and jail 
> terms.

If the argument is to have non-payment of a licence a civil offence I'm
not opposed to that. The burden of proof would be lower in that case, of
course.

> Several newspapers have had reporters visit magistrate’s court to describe 
> what goes on. They all tell harrowing stories of frightened, distressed 
> people, mostly women, facing fines they cannot pay under threat of 
> imprisonment if they do not. Many are single mothers, many on benefits. They 
> have not paid the licence fee because they cannot afford to. The sum of 
> £145.50 per year is huge for a young mother struggling to feed and clothe 
> children. Many weep in court, una

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Joe]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 10:43:00 +0200
Tony van der Hoff  wrote:

> On 13/08/15 03:51, Martin McCormick wrote:
> > For those in the UK, We in North America could
> > occasionally receive BBC1 from transmitters across the British
> > Aisles when Solar activity was high. 
> 
> British Aisles??
> 

A nation of supermarket-keepers.

-- 
Joe

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Martin Read]

On 14/08/15 23:03, Brian wrote:

On Fri 14 Aug 2015 at 09:08:30 +0100, Martin Read wrote:

And yes, the law does distinguish between broadcast programmes and live
internet streaming (e.g. the BBC's live coverage of the World Snooker


No it doesn't. Watching BBC News being streamed live with get_iplayer is
regarded as equivalent to receiving the same channel from a satellite or
terrestrial transmitter.


Please read *the entirety* of the sentence you split in half to tell me 
I'm wrong, not just the first half.

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Brian]

On Fri 14 Aug 2015 at 09:08:30 +0100, Martin Read wrote:

> On 12/08/15 18:23, Brian wrote:
> >On Wed 12 Aug 2015 at 16:57:33 +0100, Martin Smith wrote:
> >>I suffer from them, I haven't had a tv since 1971, and they can't let go,
> >
> >Unless you have typed and sent your mail from a friend's computer, you do.
> 
> Conveniently, what the law requires people to purchase a TV licence for is
> not "you have equipment capable of receiving television programmes as they
> are being broadcast", but rather "you *use* some piece of equipment to watch
> or record television programmes as they are being broadcast".

I know what the law requires. For the purposes of the Act possession of
a computer is the same as possession of a piece of viewing equipment
commonly known as a "TV", You apparently have a computer. Therefore you
acquired a TV between 1971 and now.

> And yes, the law does distinguish between broadcast programmes and live
> internet streaming (e.g. the BBC's live coverage of the World Snooker

No it doesn't. Watching BBC News being streamed live with get_iplayer is
regarded as equivalent to receiving the same channel from a satellite or
terrestrial transmitter.

> Championship) on the one hand, and video-on-demand services (e.g. Youtube,
> or IIRC the BBC's facilities for watching programmes after-the-fact) and
> prepackaged recordings on the other.

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Lisi Reisz]

On Thursday 13 August 2015 09:38:03 Brian wrote:
> On Wed 12 Aug 2015 at 20:04:41 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > Quoting Brian (a...@cityscape.co.uk):
> > > On Wed 12 Aug 2015 at 16:57:33 +0100, Martin Smith wrote:
> > > > On 12/08/2015 14:56, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > > >The care alone, even were there no societal cost, costs several
> > > > > orders of magnitude more money than the £145.50 cost of a TV
> > > > > licence.  The trial alone, too, will have cost more than that! 
> > > > > Then there is the cost of keeping her in prison.
> > > >
> > > > that is the problem, we have to punish sinners, we are after all
> > > > obsessed opinion.
> > > > I am led to believe it demonstrates our righteousness, but that is
> > > > not my> opinion.
> > >
> > > It's called upholding and enforcing the law of the country, not
> > > trangressing the will of some other entity.
> > >
> > > Incidentally. The tale you quoted and replied to is based on "When
> > > she goes to prison for non-payment of her licence". This cannot
> > > happen. The maximum penalty is a fine.
> >
> > This may well be true. I'm not a lawyer: I don't know. However, the
> > public perception is that you *can* be imprisoned and so it colours
> > discussion of the licence fee. For example, here is a quotation by the
>
> Incorrect statements colouring discussion hampers fruitful discussion.
>
> > Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, someone involved at
> > the highest level with the licence fee problem:
> >
> > “It's actually worse than a poll tax because under the poll tax, if
> > you were on a very low income you would get a considerable subsidy,”
> > he said.
> >
> > “The BBC licence fee, there is no means-tested element whatsoever; it
> > doesn't matter how poor you are, you pay £145.50 and go to prison if
> > you don't pay it.”
>
> Both the Secretary of State and non-lawyers have access to
>
>   http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/363

Yes, but they also have access to common sense.

You cannot be sent to prison for non-payment of the licence.  But you can be 
sent prison for non-payment of the fine for non-payment of the licence.  So 
in effect many are sent to prison not for non-payment, if you wish to quibble 
(and this is not a court of law, where one has to quibble), but because they 
haven't got any money and haven't paid.  It is not too great a stretch of the 
imagination and language to call that going to prison for non-payment of the 
licence.

Here is what the Guardian said about it fairly recently:

You cannot go to prison for non-payment of your licence fee, but you can be 
jailed for not paying a fine imposed as punishment for not paying for a 
licence, and in 2012, 50 people were imprisoned, up from 30 in 2009. Of 
those, 49 were given a sentence of less than three months; one person was 
given a sentence of somewhere between three and six months.

If convicted, you will get a criminal record,

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/24/in-court-non-payment-tv-licence-television-desperate-cases

Then:

 Culture Secretary Sajid Javid reports that 10% of magistrate court cases are 
for non-payment of the BBC licence fee. Non-payment is a criminal offence, 
punishable by a fine of up to £1,000. Every week about 3,000 people are fined 
for non-payment, and *about one person a week is jailed for non-payment 
of the fine.* (my stars)

Women make up about 70% of those prosecuted and convicted, and half of those 
jailed for not paying the fine. When people fail to pay other utilities, such 
as energy companies, they are guilty of a civil offence, not a criminal one, 
and they cannot be prosecuted and fined for falling behind with their 
payments. Civil action can be taken for recovery, but without fines and jail 
terms.

Several newspapers have had reporters visit magistrate’s court to describe 
what goes on. They all tell harrowing stories of frightened, distressed 
people, mostly women, facing fines they cannot pay under threat of 
imprisonment if they do not. Many are single mothers, many on benefits. They 
have not paid the licence fee because they cannot afford to. The sum of 
£145.50 per year is huge for a young mother struggling to feed and clothe 
children. Many weep in court, unable to pay the fine for the same reason they 
couldn’t afford the licence fee; they don’t have the money.

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/media-culture/non-payment-of-bbc-licence-fee-accounts-for-10-of-prosecutions/

Young single mothers are sent to prison because they have not got the money to 
pay their TV licences, with the consequences I have already described.

Lisi

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Tony van der Hoff]

On 13/08/15 03:51, Martin McCormick wrote:
>   For those in the UK, We in North America could
> occasionally receive BBC1 from transmitters across the British
> Aisles when Solar activity was high. 

British Aisles??

-- 
Tony van der Hoff  | mailto:t...@vanderhoff.org
Ariège, France |

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Martin Read]

On 12/08/15 18:23, Brian wrote:

On Wed 12 Aug 2015 at 16:57:33 +0100, Martin Smith wrote:

I suffer from them, I haven't had a tv since 1971, and they can't let go,


Unless you have typed and sent your mail from a friend's computer, you do.


Conveniently, what the law requires people to purchase a TV licence for 
is not "you have equipment capable of receiving television programmes as 
they are being broadcast", but rather "you *use* some piece of equipment 
to watch or record television programmes as they are being broadcast".


And yes, the law does distinguish between broadcast programmes and live 
internet streaming (e.g. the BBC's live coverage of the World Snooker 
Championship) on the one hand, and video-on-demand services (e.g. 
Youtube, or IIRC the BBC's facilities for watching programmes 
after-the-fact) and prepackaged recordings on the other.

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Brian]

On Wed 12 Aug 2015 at 20:04:41 -0500, David Wright wrote:

> Quoting Brian (a...@cityscape.co.uk):
> > On Wed 12 Aug 2015 at 16:57:33 +0100, Martin Smith wrote:
> > > On 12/08/2015 14:56, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> 
> > > >The care alone, even were there no societal cost, costs several orders of
> > > >magnitude more money than the £145.50 cost of a TV licence.  The trial 
> > > >alone,
> > > >too, will have cost more than that!  Then there is the cost of keeping 
> > > >her in
> > > >prison.
> > >
> > > that is the problem, we have to punish sinners, we are after all obsessed
> > > opinion.
> > > I am led to believe it demonstrates our righteousness, but that is not my 
> > >> opinion.
> > 
> > It's called upholding and enforcing the law of the country, not
> > trangressing the will of some other entity.
> > 
> > Incidentally. The tale you quoted and replied to is based on "When
> > she goes to prison for non-payment of her licence". This cannot
> > happen. The maximum penalty is a fine.
> 
> This may well be true. I'm not a lawyer: I don't know. However, the
> public perception is that you *can* be imprisoned and so it colours
> discussion of the licence fee. For example, here is a quotation by the

Incorrect statements colouring discussion hampers fruitful discussion.

> Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, someone involved at
> the highest level with the licence fee problem:
> 
> “It's actually worse than a poll tax because under the poll tax, if
> you were on a very low income you would get a considerable subsidy,”
> he said.
> 
> “The BBC licence fee, there is no means-tested element whatsoever; it
> doesn't matter how poor you are, you pay £145.50 and go to prison if
> you don't pay it.”

Both the Secretary of State and non-lawyers have access to

  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/363

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Martin McCormick]

For those in the UK, We in North America could
occasionally receive BBC1 from transmitters across the British
Aisles when Solar activity was high. The Band-1 transmissions
were roughly between 41 and 45 MHZ. Audio was AM or amplitude
modulation as well as was the video which was 405-lines and
monochrome.

We could receive the signals during Winter and only when
it was daylight in both places.

The Band-1 transmissions had been active from the 1930's
until 1986 except for World War II when they were switched off to
save money and remove a perfect beacon source for bombers to use
for guidance.

The radio frequencies between 41 and 45 MHZ are used in
the Americas for emergency services and business two-way radio so
when the video signal was strong, folks using two-way radios in
that range had loads of whistles and buzzes to jam their
transmissions.

People in the UK who may have lived in weak signal areas
probably saw lots of video disturbances from signals in the
Americas so while the unusual reception was interesting for us
radio enthusiasts, it really did none of the proper users any
good at all. That's partly why the BBC discontinued those transmissions
in 1986 and we in North America went digital in 2012.

I listened to the sound of numerous transmitters in
Britain and France which had a similar system on slightly
different frequencies around 1970 and again around 1980-82 . I
remember hearing some of our emergency services trying to talk
over the video buzz and not doing too well. Sorry for the
extremely off-topic post, but I thought some might find this
interesting.

Martin

Re: pptp-based vpn

[David Wright]

Quoting Brian (a...@cityscape.co.uk):
> On Wed 12 Aug 2015 at 16:57:33 +0100, Martin Smith wrote:
> > On 12/08/2015 14:56, Lisi Reisz wrote:

> > >The care alone, even were there no societal cost, costs several orders of
> > >magnitude more money than the £145.50 cost of a TV licence.  The trial 
> > >alone,
> > >too, will have cost more than that!  Then there is the cost of keeping her 
> > >in
> > >prison.
> >
> > that is the problem, we have to punish sinners, we are after all obsessed
> > opinion.
> > I am led to believe it demonstrates our righteousness, but that is not my   
> >  > opinion.
> 
> It's called upholding and enforcing the law of the country, not
> trangressing the will of some other entity.
> 
> Incidentally. The tale you quoted and replied to is based on "When
> she goes to prison for non-payment of her licence". This cannot
> happen. The maximum penalty is a fine.

This may well be true. I'm not a lawyer: I don't know. However, the
public perception is that you *can* be imprisoned and so it colours
discussion of the licence fee. For example, here is a quotation by the
Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, someone involved at
the highest level with the licence fee problem:

“It's actually worse than a poll tax because under the poll tax, if
you were on a very low income you would get a considerable subsidy,”
he said.

“The BBC licence fee, there is no means-tested element whatsoever; it
doesn't matter how poor you are, you pay £145.50 and go to prison if
you don't pay it.”

Cheers,
David.

Re: pptp-based vpn

[John Hasler]

David Wright writes:
> Indeed. But in Britain, the term is politically overloaded, a
> touchstone of all that is bad (for a large proportion of the
> population). No headline writer would dream of writing Head Tax when
> they can scream Poll Tax. Poll tax is the idiomatic expression, that's
> all.

In the USA as well.  Until poll taxes as a precondition for voting were
ruled unconstitutional in the 1960s they were used in some Southern
states to discourage blacks (and poor whites) from voting.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

Re: pptp-based vpn

[David Wright]

Quoting John Hasler (jhas...@newsguy.com):
>  David Wright writes:
> > In the UK, tomas's tax would be called a "poll tax"..
> 
> "Poll" once meant "head".

Indeed. But in Britain, the term is politically overloaded, a
touchstone of all that is bad (for a large proportion of the
population). No headline writer would dream of writing Head Tax
when they can scream Poll Tax. Poll tax is the idiomatic expression,
that's all.

Cheers,
David.

Re: pptp-based vpn

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:06:49AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> tomas writes:
> > To me, it's just a thinly veiled way of moving things to a flat-tax
> > scheme, for the benefit of the rich (yes, I know about the official
> > rationale)
> 
> Don't you mean a head tax?  "Flat tax" usually refers to a tax that is a
> fixed percentage of all income (or of all expenditures, which comes to
> the same thing).

Yes, that's probably more correct.

- -- t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlXLsRUACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYuCgCeJTFTkHLJcGoFz+ih+b//JIV7
ynYAnjJnhSvedj3aL6P5+e+1oUPqB7Ot
=gVo4
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: pptp-based vpn

[John Hasler]

 David Wright writes:
> In the UK, tomas's tax would be called a "poll tax"..

"Poll" once meant "head".
-- 
John Hasler 
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

Re: pptp-based vpn

[David Wright]

Quoting John Hasler (jhas...@newsguy.com):
> tomas writes:
> > To me, it's just a thinly veiled way of moving things to a flat-tax
> > scheme, for the benefit of the rich (yes, I know about the official
> > rationale)
> 
> Don't you mean a head tax?  "Flat tax" usually refers to a tax that is a
> fixed percentage of all income (or of all expenditures, which comes to
> the same thing).

In the UK, tomas's tax would be called a "poll tax", and the
replacement of residential rates (on houses) by a poll tax (on people)
caused riots in the 1990s before the rates came back in a different
guise. In effect, that so-called "poll tax" *was* a poll tax because
one way people avoided it was by not putting themselves on the
Electoral Register, so losing their vote.

Cheers,
David.

Re: pptp-based vpn

[David Wright]

Quoting doug (dmcgarr...@optonline.net):

> I'm curious. Do you have to pay that sum for each TV receiver, or is
> it a balnket license per house?
> Also there is a reference to a computer--does a computer count as a TV?
> I assume that the license is renewed annually?

The horse's mouth is at http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/

Cheers,
David.

Re: pptp-based vpn

[doug]

On 08/12/2015 01:23 PM, Brian wrote:
/snip/

I suffer from them, I haven't had a tv since 1971, and they can't let go,
Unless you have typed and sent your mail from a friend's computer, you do.

[Snip]


The care alone, even were there no societal cost, costs several orders of
magnitude more money than the £145.50 cost of a TV licence.  The trial alone,
too, will have cost more than that!  Then there is the cost of keeping her in
prison.

/snip/

I'm curious. Do you have to pay that sum for each TV receiver, or is it 
a balnket license per house?

Also there is a reference to a computer--does a computer count as a TV?
I assume that the license is renewed annually?

--doug in free-TV America


Incidentally. The tale you quoted and replied to is based on "When
she goes to prison for non-payment of her licence". This cannot
happen. The maximum penalty is a fine.

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Brian]

On Wed 12 Aug 2015 at 16:57:33 +0100, Martin Smith wrote:

> On 12/08/2015 14:56, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> >On Wednesday 12 August 2015 14:04:37 marti...@suddenlink.net wrote:
> >>   Now think, for a second how much money it costs to outfit
> >>a van with high-quality broad-spectrum radio receivers, a person to
> >>drive and another to tune and evaluate what he/she is receiving
> >>and whether or not it is from a TV tuner or Heaven knows what
> >>else.
> >They have a much simpler solution.  They barely bother with the vans (they
> >exist, I believe, though I have never seen one).  They see a house.  They see
> >an electoral register.  They assume a television.  They check for a licence.
> >No licence?  They assume criminality.  And start bullying.
>
> I suffer from them, I haven't had a tv since 1971, and they can't let go,

Unless you have typed and sent your mail from a friend's computer, you do.

[Snip]

> >The care alone, even were there no societal cost, costs several orders of
> >magnitude more money than the £145.50 cost of a TV licence.  The trial alone,
> >too, will have cost more than that!  Then there is the cost of keeping her in
> >prison.
>
> that is the problem, we have to punish sinners, we are after all obsessed
> opinion.
> I am led to believe it demonstrates our righteousness, but that is not my 
>> opinion.

It's called upholding and enforcing the law of the country, not
trangressing the will of some other entity.

Incidentally. The tale you quoted and replied to is based on "When
she goes to prison for non-payment of her licence". This cannot
happen. The maximum penalty is a fine.

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Joe]

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:04:37 -0500
 wrote:


>   Several years ago, one of the United States television
> networks did a story on the British TV license and showed agents
> in a van driving around looking for the tell-tale weak radio
> signals from the local oscillators of television tuners and then
> counting and matching the number of such signals with the number
> of residents in houses to see if anybody had an un-licensed
> television.
> 

The story started in the early 20th century, when many designs of radio
receiver cause significant radiation, particularly super-regenerative
types. Poorly designed transmitters might also radiate on frequencies
other than those intended.

The Post Office were given the job of policing radio interference, and a
licence was required for both transmitters and receivers to fund this
activity. They had mobile equipment to track sources of interference.

When the BBC began regular transmission (they were pretty much
hobbyists before that), a decision was made to fund it from increased
receiver licences. The Post Office still issued the licences, and
passed on about 90% (in the 1970s, at least) to the BBC. The
interference-tracking equipment could certainly spot a typical
television receiver, though probably not a properly-designed radio
receiver.

As TV design improved, it became more difficult to detect the local
oscillator, but the horizontal timebase radiated quite powerfully at
low frequencies. In the 70s and 80s, if I needed an atomic frequency
reference to adjust something, I would hang an oscilloscope probe over
the front of a TV and compare the waveform with what I was working on.

So it was until non-CRT television displays became widespread. The
high-power timebase disappeared, and there was pretty much always
standards conversion going on, with a frame or two of storage. Even
when it was possible to detect screen emissions, they were not related
to the transmitted signal, and there was therefore no evidence of use
of a TV tuner. Early personal computers used the television standards
as real computer monitors were enormously expensive, which also
confused detection.

Nobody believes in the existence of detector vans today, but they
certainly existed once. As Lisi said, it is simply assumed that every
pile of bricks everywhere contains at least one TV, and you are very
nearly legally required to somehow prove the absence of one to avoid
prosecution.

-- 
Joe

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Martin Smith]

On 12/08/2015 14:56, Lisi Reisz wrote:

On Wednesday 12 August 2015 14:04:37 marti...@suddenlink.net wrote:

   Now think, for a second how much money it costs to outfit
a van with high-quality broad-spectrum radio receivers, a person to
drive and another to tune and evaluate what he/she is receiving
and whether or not it is from a TV tuner or Heaven knows what
else.

They have a much simpler solution.  They barely bother with the vans (they
exist, I believe, though I have never seen one).  They see a house.  They see
an electoral register.  They assume a television.  They check for a licence.
No licence?  They assume criminality.  And start bullying.

I suffer from them, I haven't had a tv since 1971, and they can't let go,
now if we displayed the same paranoia in our interactions with others 
around us

accusing them of owing us money when they do not, the it is highly likely we
wound get committed under the mental health act.

  


If you insist that you haven't got a television, they do seem to make some
sort of effort to check, because I have not been in prison.  But they
continue to bully you.  After all, you might buy or be given one.  If you buy
it from a shop, the shop has to tell the authorities, but you might buy one
on eBay or from a neighbour.

And you underestimate the cost, both in money terms and to society.  Let us
take the  clichéd typical non-licence buyer: a single mother on a very low
income.  When she goes to prison for non-payment of her licence, her children
go into care.  Those children are almost inevitably damaged by our
so-called "care" system, and society then has, often monetarily expensive,
problems for years to come.

The care alone, even were there no societal cost, costs several orders of
magnitude more money than the £145.50 cost of a TV licence.  The trial alone,
too, will have cost more than that!  Then there is the cost of keeping her in
prison.
that is the problem, we have to punish sinners, we are after all 
obsessed with it
I am led to believe it demonstrates our righteousness, but that is not 
my opinion.




And will she pay her TV licence next year?  Probably not, because she still
will chose to feed her children if she hasn't got enough money for both.  And
when she looks for a job, when her youngest child starts school, she will
have difficulty getting one because she has a criminal record.

Lisi

Re: pptp-based vpn

[John Hasler]

tomas writes:
> To me, it's just a thinly veiled way of moving things to a flat-tax
> scheme, for the benefit of the rich (yes, I know about the official
> rationale)

Don't you mean a head tax?  "Flat tax" usually refers to a tax that is a
fixed percentage of all income (or of all expenditures, which comes to
the same thing).
-- 
John Hasler 
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

Re: pptp-based vpn

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 02:56:21PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 August 2015 14:04:37 marti...@suddenlink.net wrote:
> >   Now think, for a second how much money it costs to outfit
> > a van [...]

> They have a much simpler solution.  They barely bother with the vans (they 
> exist, I believe, though I have never seen one).  They see a house.  They see 
> an electoral register.  They assume a television.  They check for a licence.  
> No licence?  They assume criminality.  And start bullying.  

Over here in Germany, they found a better solution: if you have a compuer and
an Internet connection, you technically have a TV set. Since everyone has
this, every household has to pay up (yes, they relaxed things to per-household,
except for commercial entities, where it gets complicated).

To me, it's just a thinly veiled way of moving things to a flat-tax scheme,
for the benefit of the rich (yes, I know about the official rationale)

- -- t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlXLWS0ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kafkQCdGuoN26WCviuDOqFeoczFbbgv
U3kAn1uhqE8w6z4K7gtHNoDEaatjeIkV
=tJWP
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Lisi Reisz]

On Wednesday 12 August 2015 14:04:37 marti...@suddenlink.net wrote:
>   Now think, for a second how much money it costs to outfit
> a van with high-quality broad-spectrum radio receivers, a person to
> drive and another to tune and evaluate what he/she is receiving
> and whether or not it is from a TV tuner or Heaven knows what
> else.

They have a much simpler solution.  They barely bother with the vans (they 
exist, I believe, though I have never seen one).  They see a house.  They see 
an electoral register.  They assume a television.  They check for a licence.  
No licence?  They assume criminality.  And start bullying.  

If you insist that you haven't got a television, they do seem to make some 
sort of effort to check, because I have not been in prison.  But they 
continue to bully you.  After all, you might buy or be given one.  If you buy 
it from a shop, the shop has to tell the authorities, but you might buy one 
on eBay or from a neighbour.

And you underestimate the cost, both in money terms and to society.  Let us 
take the  clichéd typical non-licence buyer: a single mother on a very low 
income.  When she goes to prison for non-payment of her licence, her children 
go into care.  Those children are almost inevitably damaged by our 
so-called "care" system, and society then has, often monetarily expensive, 
problems for years to come.

The care alone, even were there no societal cost, costs several orders of 
magnitude more money than the £145.50 cost of a TV licence.  The trial alone, 
too, will have cost more than that!  Then there is the cost of keeping her in 
prison.

And will she pay her TV licence next year?  Probably not, because she still 
will chose to feed her children if she hasn't got enough money for both.  And 
when she looks for a job, when her youngest child starts school, she will 
have difficulty getting one because she has a criminal record.

Lisi

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Nicolas George]

Le quintidi 25 thermidor, an CCXXIII, marti...@suddenlink.net a écrit :
>   All that aside, think of the money that the BBC spends
> administering and enforcing the system that they have created.
> The United States is not immune to this sort of self-harm,
> either. It goes on at all levels from local government up to
> federal agencies.

Do not forget the private sector in this inventory: think on how many
millions of zorkmids are wasted developing non-working DRM schemes, and how
many thousands of potentially happy paying customers these DRM are driving
away towards other means of distribution.

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

[OFFTOPIC] Re: pptp-based vpn

[Stefan Monnier]

>   All that aside, think of the money that the BBC spends
> administering and enforcing the system that they have created.

Indeed.  For that same reason public transit systems should be paid out
of the normal government budget rather than being tied to individual
users (which can also be described as "should be free").


Stefan

Re: pptp-based vpn

[martin.m]

David Wright wrote:
> When I was a boy, the TV licence fee was taxed (called "duty") by the
> government at 33%.

This has been a very interesting discussion as I am one
who believes that information and media should be unrestricted
and priced reasonably or subsidized by advertising. Being from
the United States, the idea of paying a media license fee is
abhorrent so I wanted to find out what a country such as Canada
does. In the United States, it is forbidden by law for the
federal government to broadcast directly to Americans so all
broadcasting is either commercial or community/public
broadcasting such as from universities and other schools and some
religious organizations.

Canada has a model which is close to what could be done
in Britain and I wouldn't be surprised if, at some future time,
Britain changes their model.

In Canada, there is both a vibrant commercial radio and
television industry and the CBC which is the Canadian
government's broadcasting arm.

The money to run the CBC comes out of the federal budget
and is not tied to individual taxpayers. Look up the topic of a
Canadian TV license fee and it has come up and been roundly
dismissed.

Australia also has a duel system which apparently has
worked over time.
Several years ago, one of the United States television
networks did a story on the British TV license and showed agents
in a van driving around looking for the tell-tale weak radio
signals from the local oscillators of television tuners and then
counting and matching the number of such signals with the number
of residents in houses to see if anybody had an un-licensed
television.

Sometimes, they found them and people got in to trouble.
They then showed a message airing on British television urging
people to pay the license fees and in the announcement, several
men are in a jail cell asking each other what they are in for.

Answers are such things as murder, robbery and having an
un-licensed television.

Now think, for a second how much money it costs to outfit
a van with high-quality broad-spectrum radio receivers, a person to
drive and another to tune and evaluate what he/she is receiving
and whether or not it is from a TV tuner or Heaven knows what
else. These days, there is a faint and not-so-faint electronic
smog everywhere from computerized gear that emits signals from
below the AM broadcast band well in to UHF. These signals are
what is called incidental radiation so I am not speaking about
things such as WiFi and other one and two-way radio
communication. This is just radio frequency noise that is the
result of microprocessors and other switching circuits doing
their thing and emitting signals more or less by accident.

All that aside, think of the money that the BBC spends
administering and enforcing the system that they have created.
The United States is not immune to this sort of self-harm,
either. It goes on at all levels from local government up to
federal agencies.

We have a problem so we must do this and that to make
sure everybody pays. Oh my, they're getting around paying by
doing X, Y, or Z, so we must make it illegal to--- and it goes on
and on.

It reminds me of a quote reportedly from Albert Einstein
that says,

"Clever people solve problems. Wise people avoid problems."

As a newly-retired IT person, I am alarmed at the faction
that just says "no" versus those who say, "Maybe we can work
something out." That is much more positive and makes fewer people
in to criminals.

Martin

Re: "two peoples separated by a common language" -was {Re: [OT] Television licensing. was: Re: pptp-based vpn}

[Bret Busby]

On 10/08/2015, Lisi Reisz  wrote:
> On Sunday 09 August 2015 22:17:16 Bob Bernstein wrote:
>>  we Yankees are put off by
>> "apothecated," and begin, when we see it, to wonder if we
>> have any prescriptions that need to be picked up at the good
>> old apothecary.
>
> And quite right too.
>
> You are better proof readers than I.  I see what I know should be there.
> And
> my spell checker was entirely happy.  Sorry again. :-(
>
> I have quadruple checked hypothecated.   It is right this time.
> Lisi
>

Well, ... hypothetickly, anyway

;~{)}


-- 
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
..

"So once you do know what the question actually is,
 you'll know what the answer means."
- Deep Thought,
 Chapter 28 of Book 1 of
 "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
 A Trilogy In Four Parts",
 written by Douglas Adams,
 published by Pan Books, 1992




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CACX6j8N+-2GZv8Rwby=dshoyb6e2vu-finnoucp2dntohre...@mail.gmail.com

Re: pptp-based vpn

[David Wright]

Quoting Lisi Reisz (lisi.re...@gmail.com):
> On Sunday 09 August 2015 20:23:34 Joe wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 11:50:48 +0100
> >
> > Brad Rogers  wrote:
> > > On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 06:43:15 -0400
> > > Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Renaud,
> > >
> > > >I cannot understand why the UK has not followed the other countries
> > > >that have ditched TV licensing, and all the attending bureaucracy,
> > > >and replaced it with a single check box on the income tax form...
> > >
> > > Because it's not a tax.  The money doesn't go to the govt, it goes to
> > > the BBC.  License revenue is still 40% (IIRC) of their revenue.
> >
> > Non-payment is a criminal offence, not a breach of contract, and is
> > potentially punishable by imprisonment.
> >
> > The BBC does not have the powers of prosecution and imprisonment.
> >
> > Where the money ends up is irrelevant, it is collected by UK law,
> > enforced by the UK government and courts.
> >
> > If it walks like a duck, etc., and when the government robs me, it's
> > called 'tax'.

When I was a boy, the TV licence fee was taxed (called "duty") by the
government at 33%.

> I agree.  A HYpothecated tax.  Unlike most hypothecated taxes, however, it is 
> actually spent on that for which it is intended.

Perhaps that's why the government is unhappy with the situation: they
hate hypothecated taxes. Here, property taxes vary by town and county,
and the sales tax varies from one side of the street to the other!
http://cityofmhk.com/1486/Manhattan-Taxes

Cheers,
David.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150809221317.GB15659@alum

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Lisi Reisz]

On Sunday 09 August 2015 22:41:18 David Wright wrote:
> Quoting Lisi Reisz (lisi.re...@gmail.com):
> > On Sunday 09 August 2015 02:48:57 David Wright wrote:
> > > Quoting Lisi Reisz (lisi.re...@gmail.com):
> > > > As if I shan't have
> > > > enough to do if my husband predeceases me, I shall have to acquire a
> > > > paid-for TV Licence rapidly, if I am not to have their bulldogs after
> > > > me. Or I suppose that I could just get rid of the TV!!  Fast.  And
> > > > watch iPlayer after the event.  Though not everything is available
> > > > that way.
> > >
> > > the licence is per household so you're covered
> > > until the expiry date anyway.
> >
> > I shall have to check.  But I think that you are only entitled to a free
> > licence, however long the piece of paper says, while the free licence
> > holder is alive.
>
> D'oh! (My turn). I hadn't picked up on the significance of "paid-for"
> and just assumed that one of you paid the bills and "all that sort of
> thing". 

Correct.  I do!  But when they said: change the name on your licence to your 
husband's and you can have it free, I said thanks and changed the name.

>
> > It was bound to have gone on line.  But I haven't had to pay for one for
> > 7 years so didn't know that.  But I'll still have enough to worry about
> > without flipping TV licences!
>
> AFAICT you could put the TV licence in the name of your pet rabbit; so
> long as the address has one, they will not disturb you. 

Yes, but, slow as they are,  I think that they just might pick up on the 
person entitled to a free licence being dead, seeing as how deaths have to be 
registered!  He'll just have to take care to let me predecease him. ;-)  Or 
wait until I qualify for a free licence myself.

> Were you to 
> get rid of your TV (and let your licence expire), they would plague
> you with letters until you made a declaration. (Even then they might not
> stop.)

At one stage I didn't have a television.  I assure you they don't stop!!

Lisi



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201508092255.47715.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: pptp-based vpn

[David Wright]

Quoting Lisi Reisz (lisi.re...@gmail.com):
> On Sunday 09 August 2015 02:48:57 David Wright wrote:
> > Quoting Lisi Reisz (lisi.re...@gmail.com):
> > > I think I may have misunderstood.  Do you have no licence, because you
> > > have no TV, or not pay a Licence because you are given one?
> >
> > Hint: look at my timezone (when you're awake).
> 
> D'oh!
> 
> > > As if I shan't have
> > > enough to do if my husband predeceases me, I shall have to acquire a
> > > paid-for TV Licence rapidly, if I am not to have their bulldogs after me.
> > >  Or I suppose that I could just get rid of the TV!!  Fast.  And watch
> > > iPlayer after the event.  Though not everything is available that way.
> >
> > TV Licensing is at http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/ and takes five
> > minutes. However, the licence is per household so you're covered
> > until the expiry date anyway. And you only need the name and address
> > to check if you're covered and for how long. In theory, you can bin
> > the actual licence (if they still produce them).
> 
> I shall have to check.  But I think that you are only entitled to a free 
> licence, however long the piece of paper says, while the free licence holder 
> is alive.  Although while (s)he is alive, it does as you say cover the entire 
> household.

D'oh! (My turn). I hadn't picked up on the significance of "paid-for"
and just assumed that one of you paid the bills and "all that sort of
thing". For the longest time, both our cars were always registered in
my wife's name because I never got round to changing it each time we
acquired a new one and I took over the older one.

> It was bound to have gone on line.  But I haven't had to pay for one for 7 
> years so didn't know that.  But I'll still have enough to worry about without 
> flipping TV licences!

AFAICT you could put the TV licence in the name of your pet rabbit; so
long as the address has one, they will not disturb you. Were you to
get rid of your TV (and let your licence expire), they would plague
you with letters until you made a declaration. (Even then they might not
stop.)

Cheers,
David.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150809214118.GA15659@alum

Re: "two peoples separated by a common language" -was {Re: [OT] Television licensing. was: Re: pptp-based vpn}

[Bob Bernstein]

On Sun, 9 Aug 2015, Lisi Reisz wrote:

I have quadruple checked hypothecated.  It is right this 
time.


It's not as if you are a chronic or "multiple" offender, 
which latter adjective is in some counties preferred for 
reference to citizens who earn repeated arrests for driving 
while intoxicated, which I *imagine* to be a more serious 
offense than spelling boo-boos, but then Lord knows I am not 
an attorney, that is just my opinion, and I could be wrong.


--
Bob Bernstein


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/alpine.DEB.2.20.1508091732430.1966@qrovna.ybpnyqbznva

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Lisi Reisz]

On Sunday 09 August 2015 20:23:34 Joe wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 11:50:48 +0100
>
> Brad Rogers  wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 06:43:15 -0400
> > Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI  wrote:
> >
> > Hello Renaud,
> >
> > >I cannot understand why the UK has not followed the other countries
> > >that have ditched TV licensing, and all the attending bureaucracy,
> > >and replaced it with a single check box on the income tax form...
> >
> > Because it's not a tax.  The money doesn't go to the govt, it goes to
> > the BBC.  License revenue is still 40% (IIRC) of their revenue.
>
> Non-payment is a criminal offence, not a breach of contract, and is
> potentially punishable by imprisonment.
>
> The BBC does not have the powers of prosecution and imprisonment.
>
> Where the money ends up is irrelevant, it is collected by UK law,
> enforced by the UK government and courts.
>
> If it walks like a duck, etc., and when the government robs me, it's
> called 'tax'.

I agree.  A HYpothecated tax.  Unlike most hypothecated taxes, however, it is 
actually spent on that for which it is intended.

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201508092231.23762.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: "two peoples separated by a common language" -was {Re: [OT] Television licensing. was: Re: pptp-based vpn}

[Lisi Reisz]

On Sunday 09 August 2015 22:17:16 Bob Bernstein wrote:
>  we Yankees are put off by
> "apothecated," and begin, when we see it, to wonder if we
> have any prescriptions that need to be picked up at the good
> old apothecary.

And quite right too.

You are better proof readers than I.  I see what I know should be there.  And 
my spell checker was entirely happy.  Sorry again. :-(

I have quadruple checked hypothecated.   It is right this time.
Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201508092229.45033.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: "two peoples separated by a common language" -was {Re: [OT] Television licensing. was: Re: pptp-based vpn}

[Lisi Reisz]

On Sunday 09 August 2015 21:51:10 Richard Owlett wrote:
> Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> >> Because it's not a tax.
> >
> > In effect, it is an apothecated tax.  But we are reluctant to acknowledge
> > that.

Typo and old age with recalcitrant fingers.  Also lousy proof reading.  I 
believe taht I have mentioned taht before.  Sorry. :-(

HYpothecated.


> I did a duckduckgo search for "apothecated". I got a bunch of
> colonial dictionaries. Their definitions seemed to make no sense
> in context.
>
> What's the Crown's definition?
> P.S. I've been been fascinated by linguistics for > .5 century
> due to Latin teacher reputed to have tutored Romulus et al and an
> English teacher reciting Beowulf in "original" with a running
> translation [*NOTE BENE* the quotation marks ;]
>
> Paraphrasing 'somebody', "Inquiring minds want to know".

2. to allocate the revenue raised by a tax for a specified purpose 
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/hypothecated?showCookiePolicy=true

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201508092227.34424.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: "two peoples separated by a common language" -was {Re: [OT] Television licensing. was: Re: pptp-based vpn}

[Bob Bernstein]

On Sun, 9 Aug 2015, Richard Owlett wrote:


I did a duckduckgo search for "apothecated".


Same here only used google, which seemed to want to make me 
understand how "hypothecated" should be used.


My hunch is the two words are equivalent in some vague sense 
of functionality, but clearly we Yankees are put off by 
"apothecated," and begin, when we see it, to wonder if we 
have any prescriptions that need to be picked up at the good 
old apothecary.


Oh well.

--
Bob Bernstein


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/alpine.DEB.2.20.1508091709130.1966@qrovna.ybpnyqbznva

Re: "two peoples separated by a common language" -was {Re: [OT] Television licensing. was: Re: pptp-based vpn}

[David Goodenough]

On Sunday 09 August 2015 15:51:10 Richard Owlett wrote:
> Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > [snip]
> > 
> >> Because it's not a tax.
> > 
> > In effect, it is an apothecated tax.  But we are reluctant to 
acknowledge
> > that.
> 
> I did a duckduckgo search for "apothecated". I got a bunch of
> colonial dictionaries. Their definitions seemed to make no sense
> in context.
> 
> What's the Crown's definition?
> P.S. I've been been fascinated by linguistics for > .5 century
> due to Latin teacher reputed to have tutored Romulus et al and an
> English teacher reciting Beowulf in "original" with a running
> translation [*NOTE BENE* the quotation marks ;]
> 
> Paraphrasing 'somebody', "Inquiring minds want to know".
It's not apothecated, it is hypothecated,

David 

"two peoples separated by a common language" -was {Re: [OT] Television licensing. was: Re: pptp-based vpn}

[Richard Owlett]

Lisi Reisz wrote:

[snip]


Because it's not a tax.


In effect, it is an apothecated tax.  But we are reluctant to acknowledge
that.


I did a duckduckgo search for "apothecated". I got a bunch of 
colonial dictionaries. Their definitions seemed to make no sense 
in context.


What's the Crown's definition?
P.S. I've been been fascinated by linguistics for > .5 century 
due to Latin teacher reputed to have tutored Romulus et al and an 
English teacher reciting Beowulf in "original" with a running 
translation [*NOTE BENE* the quotation marks ;]


Paraphrasing 'somebody', "Inquiring minds want to know".






--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/55c7bd3e.6040...@cloud85.net

Re: [OT] Television licensing. was: Re: pptp-based vpn

[Andrew McGlashan]

Huh, don't give our stick government any ideas; TV has never had a
license issue in my lifetime in AU.  And if the LNP (Liberal/National
Party - coalition or rather demolition!) ...  succeeds in screwing us
over more, it just might be on their cards :(

We have pay tv, but plenty of free to air; same goes for radio. I don't
understand people paying for Apple Music or any other similar service.
Heck, we even get a good go with TuneIn radio app  one day they may
charge for it, but it's free.  If they do, then there are plenty of free
Internet radios and plenty of free IPTV around.

A.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/55c7aad0.4040...@affinityvision.com.au

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Joe]

On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 11:50:48 +0100
Brad Rogers  wrote:

> On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 06:43:15 -0400
> Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI  wrote:
> 
> Hello Renaud,
> 
> >I cannot understand why the UK has not followed the other countries
> >that have ditched TV licensing, and all the attending bureaucracy,
> >and replaced it with a single check box on the income tax form...
> 
> Because it's not a tax.  The money doesn't go to the govt, it goes to
> the BBC.  License revenue is still 40% (IIRC) of their revenue.
> 

Non-payment is a criminal offence, not a breach of contract, and is
potentially punishable by imprisonment. 

The BBC does not have the powers of prosecution and imprisonment. 

Where the money ends up is irrelevant, it is collected by UK law,
enforced by the UK government and courts.

If it walks like a duck, etc., and when the government robs me, it's
called 'tax'.

-- 
Joe


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150809202334.318d9...@jresid.jretrading.com

[OT] Television licensing. was: Re: pptp-based vpn

[Lisi Reisz]

On Sunday 09 August 2015 11:50:48 Brad Rogers wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 06:43:15 -0400
> Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI  wrote:
>
> Hello Renaud,
>
> >I cannot understand why the UK has not followed the other countries
> >that have ditched TV licensing, and all the attending bureaucracy, and
> >replaced it with a single check box on the income tax form...
>
> Because it's not a tax.  

In effect, it is an apothecated tax.  But we are reluctant to acknowledge 
that.

> The money doesn't go to the govt, it goes to 
> the BBC.  License revenue is still 40% (IIRC) of their revenue.

78% in 14/15 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom

The money that the BBC did get from the government has been withdrawn, but 
free licences are to continue, so that there is the beginning of a movement 
among the elderly for the abolition of the free licences.

As I said, a minefield with tremendous political sensitivity and controversy.

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201508091255.21877.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Ron]

On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 11:50:48 +0100
Brad Rogers  wrote:

> >I cannot understand why the UK has not followed the other countries
> >that have ditched TV licensing, and all the attending bureaucracy, and
> >replaced it with a single check box on the income tax form...  

> Because it's not a tax.  The money doesn't go to the govt, it goes to
> the BBC.  License revenue is still 40% (IIRC) of their revenue.

So it was in France (called the "Redevance"), which did not prevent it being 
now collected with the income tax, and passed of to the ORTF by the Finance 
Ministry.
 
Cheers,
 
Ron.
-- 
 El consejo de la mujer es poco, y el que no le toma es loco.
  -- Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra

   -- http://www.olgiati-in-paraguay.org --
 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150809070320.0783c...@ron.cerrocora.org

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Brad Rogers]

On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 06:43:15 -0400
Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI  wrote:

Hello Renaud,

>I cannot understand why the UK has not followed the other countries
>that have ditched TV licensing, and all the attending bureaucracy, and
>replaced it with a single check box on the income tax form...

Because it's not a tax.  The money doesn't go to the govt, it goes to
the BBC.  License revenue is still 40% (IIRC) of their revenue.

-- 
 Regards  _
 / )   "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)radnever immediately apparent"
Who's a sucker now?
Edward The Bear - The Damned


pgpUXP0XEB7tE.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Ron]

On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 11:23:17 +0100
Lisi Reisz  wrote:

> It was bound to have gone on line.  But I haven't had to pay for one for 7 
> years so didn't know that.  But I'll still have enough to worry about without 
> flipping TV licences!

A special tax was understandable in the days when a TV set was an expensive 
luxury.

I cannot understand why the UK has not followed the other countries that have 
ditched TV licensing, and all the attending bureaucracy, and replaced it with a 
single check box on the income tax form...
 
Cheers,
 
Ron.
-- 
 El consejo de la mujer es poco, y el que no le toma es loco.
  -- Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra

   -- http://www.olgiati-in-paraguay.org --
 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150809064315.36c8b...@ron.cerrocora.org

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Lisi Reisz]

On Sunday 09 August 2015 02:48:57 David Wright wrote:
> Quoting Lisi Reisz (lisi.re...@gmail.com):
> > I think I may have misunderstood.  Do you have no licence, because you
> > have no TV, or not pay a Licence because you are given one?
>
> Hint: look at my timezone (when you're awake).

D'oh!

> > As if I shan't have
> > enough to do if my husband predeceases me, I shall have to acquire a
> > paid-for TV Licence rapidly, if I am not to have their bulldogs after me.
> >  Or I suppose that I could just get rid of the TV!!  Fast.  And watch
> > iPlayer after the event.  Though not everything is available that way.
>
> TV Licensing is at http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/ and takes five
> minutes. However, the licence is per household so you're covered
> until the expiry date anyway. And you only need the name and address
> to check if you're covered and for how long. In theory, you can bin
> the actual licence (if they still produce them).

I shall have to check.  But I think that you are only entitled to a free 
licence, however long the piece of paper says, while the free licence holder 
is alive.  Although while (s)he is alive, it does as you say cover the entire 
household.

It was bound to have gone on line.  But I haven't had to pay for one for 7 
years so didn't know that.  But I'll still have enough to worry about without 
flipping TV licences!

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201508091123.17098.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: pptp-based vpn

[David Wright]

Quoting Lisi Reisz (lisi.re...@gmail.com):

> I think I may have misunderstood.  Do you have no licence, because you have 
> no 
> TV, or not pay a Licence because you are given one?

Hint: look at my timezone (when you're awake).

> As if I shan't have 
> enough to do if my husband predeceases me, I shall have to acquire a paid-for 
> TV Licence rapidly, if I am not to have their bulldogs after me.  Or I 
> suppose that I could just get rid of the TV!!  Fast.  And watch iPlayer after 
> the event.  Though not everything is available that way.

TV Licensing is at http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/ and takes five
minutes. However, the licence is per household so you're covered
until the expiry date anyway. And you only need the name and address
to check if you're covered and for how long. In theory, you can bin
the actual licence (if they still produce them).

Cheers,
David.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150809014857.GE11382@alum

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Lisi Reisz]

On Sunday 09 August 2015 01:15:41 David Wright wrote:
> Quoting Lisi Reisz (lisi.re...@gmail.com):
> > > David Wright writes:
> > > > I'm hoping that the current discussions regarding its
> > > > unsustainability end up in some sort of subscription model, whereupon
> > > > there's no reason to disqualify people overseas.
>
> [...]
>
> > We are talking about the ordinary broadcasting, which is available to UK
> > living Licence payers.  (Or Licence non-payers, David. ;-)  )
> >
> > Not everything is available after the event on iPlayer anyway.  But they
> > try to ensure - unsuccessfully -  that only Licence payers get any of it.
>
> The iplayer is available to anyone in the UK, regardless of whether
> they have a paid a licence fee or not. That's one of the reasons
> the current scheme is so unfair.

Yes - that is indeed part of the minefield.  I was over-simplifying.  But it 
was based originally on the assumption that UK people pay.
>
> > They
> > control the Licence very badly, and we need a new model.  How can you
> > reasonably ensure, with today's technology, that someone only watches
> > television live on a TV?
>
> I think you need to phrase that the other way round. If you watch or
> record *any* live TV, you need a licence. 

Yes - but how can they control that?  Realistically, they can't.  They have to 
define the difference between a TV and a computer, for a start, which is 
getting more and more problematic.  They simply can't "ensure that someone 
only watches TV live on a TV". 

But I think I have just seen what you mean.  You can legally watch it live on 
a computer if you have got the licence.  And if you have not got the licence, 
you cannot legally watch it live anywhere.  But how, if you have neither a 
licence nor a TV, can they police it?  They can't.

> If you only acquire the 
> programmes after a delay (streamed or downloaded *after* the broadcast),
> then you don't need a licence. (Am I right in thinking they only
> recently moved PVRs into the licence requirement? We still have three
> though their contents are all from our fee-paying days.)

Minefield again.  I confess that I don't know where we have got to with PVRs. 
As I said, we need a new model.  But it is a complicated enough minefield 
without bringing Time Warner in! ;-)

I think I may have misunderstood.  Do you have no licence, because you have no 
TV, or not pay a Licence because you are given one?  As if I shan't have 
enough to do if my husband predeceases me, I shall have to acquire a paid-for 
TV Licence rapidly, if I am not to have their bulldogs after me.  Or I 
suppose that I could just get rid of the TV!!  Fast.  And watch iPlayer after 
the event.  Though not everything is available that way.

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201508090139.16790.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: pptp-based vpn

[David Wright]

Quoting Lisi Reisz (lisi.re...@gmail.com):

> > David Wright writes:
> > > I'm hoping that the current discussions regarding its unsustainability
> > > end up in some sort of subscription model, whereupon there's no reason
> > > to disqualify people overseas.
[...]
> We are talking about the ordinary broadcasting, which is available to UK 
> living Licence payers.  (Or Licence non-payers, David. ;-)  )
> 
> Not everything is available after the event on iPlayer anyway.  But they try 
> to ensure - unsuccessfully -  that only Licence payers get any of it.

The iplayer is available to anyone in the UK, regardless of whether
they have a paid a licence fee or not. That's one of the reasons
the current scheme is so unfair.

> They 
> control the Licence very badly, and we need a new model.  How can you 
> reasonably ensure, with today's technology, that someone only watches 
> television live on a TV?  

I think you need to phrase that the other way round. If you watch or
record *any* live TV, you need a licence. If you only acquire the
programmes after a delay (streamed or downloaded *after* the broadcast),
then you don't need a licence. (Am I right in thinking they only
recently moved PVRs into the licence requirement? We still have three
though their contents are all from our fee-paying days.)

Cheers,
David.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150809001540.GC11382@alum

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Lisi Reisz]

I've done it again.  Sorry, John.  I must remember to treat Debian users 
differently from other lists.

On Saturday 08 August 2015 22:53:17 John Hasler wrote:
> At a guess, BBC transfers all international rights to most works it
> authors to BBC Commercial which then markets them, with the result that
> BBC Domestic is obligated to try to block non-UK access.

Yes, you are guessing.  The BBC does not as a rule (and you will probably find 
an exception) hand things over to BBC Worldwide before they have been 
broadcast.  Of course they can distribute it before they have sold it.  That 
is not the issue.  The issue of how we pay and manage it in this new world of 
technology is a burning one that is massively debated.

Moreover, you are assuming that the BBC authors most of what it broadcasts.  
In radio this is broadly true - but irrelevant.  TV is much more of a 
minefield.

"BBC Domestic" does not exist.  BBC Worldwide is the commercial arm 
(Worldwide, including "domestically" in the UK - we are part of the world) of 
a NON_COMMERCIAL Corporation, funded publicly.  How, and by whom, is the 
burning issue.  Like David, I favour subscription, but I doubt that that is 
acceptable politically.

The Licence issue is a complicated, highly political, one domestically, and 
that is the issue for Brits.  Time Warner just doesn't come into it, whatever 
name you want to give it.

The blocking of content abroad is primarily a licence issue, not an issue of 
the rights of Time Warner, and any obligations that BBC Worldwide may have to 
it.  Though there have been, and I am sure will be, problems with DRM.  
Licence payers expect to be able to see what they have paid for.

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201508090101.33387.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: pptp-based vpn

[John Hasler]

Lisi Writes:
> Do the individual components not buy and sell things?

Things to which they own all rights and with the permission of central
management.

> In the case of the BBC it is a significant difference.  You are surely
> not going to claim that any of Time-Warner is non-commercial?

What's that got to do with it?  Time-Warner is not going to pay some BBC
division for exclusive USA rights to a work if some other BBC division
retains the right to distribute the work in the USA.

At a guess, BBC transfers all international rights to most works it
authors to BBC Commercial which then markets them, with the result that
BBC Domestic is obligated to try to block non-UK access.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87egjd8n1u@thumper.dhh.gt.org

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Lisi Reisz]

Bother.  Did it again.  Sorry.

On Saturday 08 August 2015 21:31:33 John Hasler wrote:
> Lisi writes:
> > It isn't "the BBC" that sells things to Time Warner, surely?  It must
> > be BBC Worldwide, the commercial arm.
>
> It isn't "Time-Warner" that buys things from the BBC, surely?  It must
> be Time-Warner Global Media group, the international arm.

Do the individual components not buy and sell things?  I would have thought 
they would, but am prepared to stand corrected.

In the case of the BBC it is a significant difference.  You are surely not 
going to claim that any of TimeWarner is non-commercial?

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201508082221.29630.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: pptp-based vpn

[John Hasler]

Lisi writes:
> It isn't "the BBC" that sells things to Time Warner, surely?  It must
> be BBC Worldwide, the commercial arm.

It isn't "Time-Warner" that buys things from the BBC, surely?  It must
be Time-Warner Global Media group, the international arm.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87mvy18qu2@thumper.dhh.gt.org

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Lisi Reisz]

Sorry, everybody, this time. :-(

On Saturday 08 August 2015 18:45:24 John Hasler wrote:
> David Wright writes:
> > I'm hoping that the current discussions regarding its unsustainability
> > end up in some sort of subscription model, whereupon there's no reason
> > to disqualify people overseas.
>
> That's irrelevant to the rights issue.  Once BBC has sold the US rights
> to Time-Warner (or whoever) they are contractually bound to try to stop
> US residents from accessing the work.

It isn't "the BBC" that sells things to Time Warner, surely?  It must be BBC 
Worldwide, the commercial arm.

We are talking about the ordinary broadcasting, which is available to UK 
living Licence payers.  (Or Licence non-payers, David. ;-)  )

Not everything is available after the event on iPlayer anyway.  But they try 
to ensure - unsuccessfully -  that only Licence payers get any of it.  They 
control the Licence very badly, and we need a new model.  How can you 
reasonably ensure, with today's technology, that someone only watches 
television live on a TV?  

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201508082036.22450.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Lisi Reisz]

Sorry, John,

On Saturday 08 August 2015 18:45:24 John Hasler wrote:
> David Wright writes:
> > I'm hoping that the current discussions regarding its unsustainability
> > end up in some sort of subscription model, whereupon there's no reason
> > to disqualify people overseas.
>
> That's irrelevant to the rights issue.  Once BBC has sold the US rights
> to Time-Warner (or whoever) they are contractually bound to try to stop
> US residents from accessing the work.

So perhaps they should have a subscription model and not sell to Time Warner.

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201508081956.44569.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Lisi Reisz]

Sorry, again, John,

On Saturday 08 August 2015 18:45:24 John Hasler wrote:
> David Wright writes:
> > I'm hoping that the current discussions regarding its unsustainability
> > end up in some sort of subscription model, whereupon there's no reason
> > to disqualify people overseas.
>
> That's irrelevant to the rights issue.  Once BBC has sold the US rights
> to Time-Warner (or whoever) they are contractually bound to try to stop
> US residents from accessing the work.

So perhaps they should have a subscription model and not sell to Time Warner.

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201508081957.15232.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: pptp-based vpn

[John Hasler]

David Wright writes:
> I'm hoping that the current discussions regarding its unsustainability
> end up in some sort of subscription model, whereupon there's no reason
> to disqualify people overseas.

That's irrelevant to the rights issue.  Once BBC has sold the US rights
to Time-Warner (or whoever) they are contractually bound to try to stop
US residents from accessing the work.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/8737ztad3f@thumper.dhh.gt.org

Re: pptp-based vpn

[David Wright]

Quoting John Hasler (jhas...@newsguy.com):
> Lisi writes:
> > And no, as someone accused the other day, this is not a case of
> > xenophobia, but of money and copyright.  People outside the UK are
> > supposed not to have paid the licence fee.
> 
> BBC may own only UK rights,  If they authored the material they may have
> sold the US rights to a US company.  If a US company authored it BBC may
> have purchased UK-only rights.  In either case they have an obligation
> to make some effort to prevent US residents from accessing it.

I've been happy to pay the licence fee since the days of the separate
radio licence: it's a bargain. It's worth it just for BBC4 which only
airs for, what, nine hours a day and, with repeats, probably only
represents three hours a day of new material. BBC2 would be a bonus.

I've also delivered hundreds of Recorded Delivery letters to dozens of
people who didn't pay it (but who manifestly had TVs).

Unfortunately there is no mechanism for me to pay it now, otherwise I
would. I'm hoping that the current discussions regarding its
unsustainability end up in some sort of subscription model, whereupon
there's no reason to disqualify people overseas.

Why get-iplayer? Well just try watching, say, a Promenade Concert.
Pausing a documentary is fine, even needed sometimes (think
Marcus du Sautoy, Jim Al-Khalili, etc) but pausing classical music? No.

Cheers,
David.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150808172811.GA11382@alum

Re: pptp-based vpn

[John Hasler]

Lisi writes:
> And no, as someone accused the other day, this is not a case of
> xenophobia, but of money and copyright.  People outside the UK are
> supposed not to have paid the licence fee.

BBC may own only UK rights,  If they authored the material they may have
sold the US rights to a US company.  If a US company authored it BBC may
have purchased UK-only rights.  In either case they have an obligation
to make some effort to prevent US residents from accessing it.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/877fp69cvs@thumper.dhh.gt.org

Re: pptp-based vpn

[Lisi Reisz]

On Saturday 08 August 2015 05:48:43 David Wright wrote:
> One other thing: it would be nice to be able to run get-iplayer
> through the tunnel, but I haven't managed it. It gets connected
> but no bytes are ever delivered to the local file.

Perhaps the BBC has succeeded in disabling it.  They certainly would like to 
do so!!  People use tunnels from abroad.

And no, as someone accused the other day, this is not a case of xenophobia, 
but of money and copyright.  People outside the UK are supposed not to have 
paid the licence fee.

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201508081149.24790.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: pptp-based vpn

[David Wright]

Quoting martin McCormick (marti...@suddenlink.net):
> David Wright  writes:
> > I think there's a fourth field missing there.
> 
> Correct! Please read on.
> 
> > 
> > Anyway, what I just did is: install pptp-linux (which pulls in ppp)
> > and typed:
> > # pptpsetup --create work --server ukvpn.ufreevpn.com --username 
> > ufreevpn.com --password free --encrypt --start
> 
> Thank you! Thanks to your answer, I was able to duplicate what
> you did.
> 
>   This system does not run a GUI desktop. It has enough RAM
> but it runs a 600-MHZ Pentium and I suspect that gnome would be a
> little slow. I also remember reading that ppptpsetup was a GUI
> application so I just figured it wouldn't run, here.
> 
>   I do have a gnome system but it runs rather hot so I only
> fire it up when needed and turn it off later as it makes a pretty
> good heater in Winter and an even better one in Summer.
> 
>   I was going to run ppptpsetup there and see what it
> generated, but I then discovered that ppptpsetup is actually on
> this system that has no gnome so I just ran it from root and
> figured the worst thing that would happen would be a message
> about no X display but it ran, producing a message that it had
> succeeded and was using the same two DNS's your running of the
> script printed.
> 
>   In less than a second, it configured everything and I
> appear to have a working VPN.
> 
>   Many thanks. It looks like my chap-secrets file was
> totally wrong or at least it was missing that 4TH field where
> there is now a * but the new vpn file named "work" it created
> looks like I had gotten that part right.

I would be interested to know if I've missed any tricks, but I have
had to do the following after pptpsetup -create...

# ip route change default dev ppp0
so that all the traffic goes to ppp0 (instead of wlan0 as normally).

...and the following after pptpsetup --delete closes it down:

# ip route change default via 192.168.1.1 dev wlan0
# for j in "$(ip -o route | grep ppp0 | cut -d\  -f 1)" ; do ip route delete 
"$j" ; done
# for j in "$(ip -o route | grep 'via 192.168.1.1' | grep -v default | cut -d\  
-f 1)" ; do ip route delete "$j" ; done

The other wrinkle I've found is that it's worth always running
# pptpsetup --delete foo
(ignoring any error message) before
# pptpsetup -create foo
because that makes sure that /etc/ppp/chap-secrets is clean with
respect to foo. It might not matter for VPNs where the password never
changes, but I think chap-secrets is scanned only as far as the first
match, so a stale password will hide the new one that pptpsetup -create
adds to the end of the file.

One other thing: it would be nice to be able to run get-iplayer
through the tunnel, but I haven't managed it. It gets connected
but no bytes are ever delivered to the local file.

Cheers,
David.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150808044843.GA17395@alum

Re: pptp-based vpn

[martin McCormick]

David Wright  writes:
> I think there's a fourth field missing there.

Correct! Please read on.

> 
> Anyway, what I just did is: install pptp-linux (which pulls in ppp)
> and typed:
> # pptpsetup --create work --server ukvpn.ufreevpn.com --username 
> ufreevpn.com --password free --encrypt --start

Thank you! Thanks to your answer, I was able to duplicate what
you did.

This system does not run a GUI desktop. It has enough RAM
but it runs a 600-MHZ Pentium and I suspect that gnome would be a
little slow. I also remember reading that ppptpsetup was a GUI
application so I just figured it wouldn't run, here.

I do have a gnome system but it runs rather hot so I only
fire it up when needed and turn it off later as it makes a pretty
good heater in Winter and an even better one in Summer.

I was going to run ppptpsetup there and see what it
generated, but I then discovered that ppptpsetup is actually on
this system that has no gnome so I just ran it from root and
figured the worst thing that would happen would be a message
about no X display but it ran, producing a message that it had
succeeded and was using the same two DNS's your running of the
script printed.

In less than a second, it configured everything and I
appear to have a working VPN.

Many thanks. It looks like my chap-secrets file was
totally wrong or at least it was missing that 4TH field where
there is now a * but the new vpn file named "work" it created
looks like I had gotten that part right.

Many thanks.

Martin McCormick


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/20150806005503.JWMQ8837.txofep01.suddenlink.net@localhost

Re: pptp-based vpn

[David Wright]

Quoting martin McCormick (marti...@suddenlink.net):
> > If I'm reading this correctly, you've stated that the connection must
> > use MPPE (because of the 'require-mppe-128' command in
> > /etc/ppp/peers/ufreevpn), but the remote end has replied that MPPE is
> > not available. Because of this, pppd terminated the connection.
> > 
> > I would suggest confirming the settings with your VPN provider.
> > Either you don't need MPPE, or they need to turn on support for it at
> > their end.
> 
>   First, thank you for the time in reading all that output.
> 
>   I re-read the instructions on the VPN provider's site and
> they do require that to be enabled.
> 
>   I think the mixup may be on what I am sending as
> credentials. Since the web site tells all callers to use the
> following credentials, I will quote them as anybody can go there
> and see the same things so I am not breaking any confidences:
> 
>PPTP Server:   ukvpn.ufreevpn.com
>   Username:   ufreevpn.com
>Password:   free
> 
> The important line in /etc/ppp/chap-secrets then reads:
> 
> ufreevpn.com ukvpn.ufreevpn.com free

I think there's a fourth field missing there.

Anyway, what I just did is: install pptp-linux (which pulls in ppp)
and typed:
# pptpsetup --create work --server ukvpn.ufreevpn.com --username ufreevpn.com 
--password free --encrypt --start

It replied:
Using interface ppp0
Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/pts/22
CHAP authentication succeeded
MPPE 128-bit stateless compression enabled
local  IP address 10.162.0.129
remote IP address 10.162.0.1

ip r changed from:
default via 192.168.1.1 dev wlan0 
192.168.1.0/24 dev wlan0  proto kernel  scope link  src 192.168.1.15 
to:
default via 192.168.1.1 dev wlan0 
77.92.72.92 via 192.168.1.1 dev wlan0  src 192.168.1.15 
192.168.1.0/24 dev wlan0  proto kernel  scope link  src 192.168.1.15 

I then added a route:
# route add -net xxx.0.0.0/8 ppp0

and now, any website whose address starts with xxx. brings up the

UFreeVPN.COM Service from UK
I Agree to use the Free VPN Service

page. I haven't tried to get beyond that, mainly because I believe I
have to open up a port on the router, which I'll try later.

chap-secrets was looked after automatically. The route is the only
thing I touched configurationwise. See if this approach works for you.

Cheers,
David.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150805211730.GA4106@alum

Re: pptp-based vpn I am trying to setup pptpd to initiate a connection to Darac Marjal wrote:

[martin McCormick]

> If I'm reading this correctly, you've stated that the connection must
> use MPPE (because of the 'require-mppe-128' command in
> /etc/ppp/peers/ufreevpn), but the remote end has replied that MPPE is
> not available. Because of this, pppd terminated the connection.
> 
> I would suggest confirming the settings with your VPN provider.
> Either you don't need MPPE, or they need to turn on support for it at
> their end.

First, thank you for the time in reading all that output.

I re-read the instructions on the VPN provider's site and
they do require that to be enabled.

I think the mixup may be on what I am sending as
credentials. Since the web site tells all callers to use the
following credentials, I will quote them as anybody can go there
and see the same things so I am not breaking any confidences:

   PPTP Server:   ukvpn.ufreevpn.com
  Username:   ufreevpn.com
   Password:   free

The important line in /etc/ppp/chap-secrets then reads:

ufreevpn.com ukvpn.ufreevpn.com free

When running the test, There is much that only tells you
I sent something and got something back. Obviously, one of those
long keys is based on wrong information or it would simply work

An interesting thing I notice in the output just before
all the black smoke, screams, blood and mayhem
is the following pair of long lines with the first coming from
ukvpn.ufreevpn.com.

rcvd [CHAP Challenge id=0x87 , name = "pptpd"]
sent [CHAP Response id=0x87 
<8c5f07f43be4aa20e96287ace081d36854c28032245f15a84b4706847c8bcc6c9b17c7a8639b7cfb00>,
 name = "ufreevpn"]

The remote server sent the name "ptpd". I sent "ufreevpn"
and I am wondering if they should be the same?

A couple of lines of binary later, the authentication
fails.

Man! I love authentication trouble. It's the ultimate
case of 20-thousand moving parts. One's broken. Go figure.

Martin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/20150805171816.PCNY8725.txofep02.suddenlink.net@localhost

Re: pptp-based vpn I am trying to setup pptpd to initiate a connection to

[Darac Marjal]

On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 08:29:31PM -0500, martin McCormick wrote:
> ukvpn.ufreevpn.com and I have never seen this work before so I am
> not sure what a working setup behaves like. It appears that it
> takes a sort of grand tour in which it makes 7 or 8 attempts at
> connecting but it ultimately gives up.
> 
>   One should run the following command to test:
> 
> pon ufreevpn debug dump logfd 2 nodetach
> 
> pppd options in effect:
> debug # (from command line)
> nodetach  # (from command line)
> persist   # (from /etc/ppp/peers/ufreevpn)
> logfd 2   # (from command line)
> dump  # (from command line)
> noauth# (from /etc/ppp/peers/ufreevpn)
> remotename ukvpn.ufreevpn.com # (from /etc/ppp/peers/ufreevpn)
>   # (from /etc/ppp/peers/ufreevpn)
> pty pptp ukvpn.ufreevpn.com --nolaunchpppd# (from 
> /etc/ppp/peers/ufreevpn)
> lcp-echo-failure 4# (from /etc/ppp/options)
> lcp-echo-interval 30  # (from /etc/ppp/options)
> hide-password # (from /etc/ppp/options)
> ipparam ukvpn.ufreevpn.com# (from /etc/ppp/peers/ufreevpn)
> defaultroute  # (from /etc/ppp/peers/ufreevpn)
> usepeerdns# (from /etc/ppp/peers/ufreevpn)
> nobsdcomp # (from /etc/ppp/peers/ufreevpn)
> nodeflate # (from /etc/ppp/peers/ufreevpn)
> require-mppe-128  # (from /etc/ppp/peers/ufreevpn)
> noipx # (from /etc/ppp/options)
> using channel 69
> Using interface ppp0
> Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/pts/2
> sent [LCP ConfReq id=0x1]
> rcvd [LCP ConfReq id=0x1
>  ]
> No auth is possible
> sent [LCP ConfRej id=0x1 ]
> sent [LCP ConfReq id=0x1]
> rcvd [LCP ConfAck id=0x1]
> rcvd [LCP ConfReq id=0x2]
> sent [LCP ConfAck id=0x2]
> sent [LCP EchoReq id=0x0 magic=0x71258109]
> MPPE required, but MS-CHAP[v2] auth not performed.
> sent [LCP TermReq id=0x2 "MPPE required but not available"]

If I'm reading this correctly, you've stated that the connection must
use MPPE (because of the 'require-mppe-128' command in
/etc/ppp/peers/ufreevpn), but the remote end has replied that MPPE is
not available. Because of this, pppd terminated the connection.

I would suggest confirming the settings with your VPN provider.
Either you don't need MPPE, or they need to turn on support for it at
their end.

> rcvd [LCP ConfAck id=0x1]
> rcvd [LCP TermReq id=0x3 "peer refused to authenticate"]
> sent [LCP TermAck id=0x3]
> rcvd [LCP TermAck id=0x2]
> Connection terminated.
> using channel 70
> 
>   It repeats this routine through 7 more channels. What
> does one see when it works?
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Martin McCormick
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
> Archive: 
> https://lists.debian.org/20150804012931.RBJX8837.txofep01.suddenlink.net@localhost
> 

-- 
For more information, please reread.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

pptp-based vpn I am trying to setup pptpd to initiate a connection to

[martin McCormick]

ukvpn.ufreevpn.com and I have never seen this work before so I am
not sure what a working setup behaves like. It appears that it
takes a sort of grand tour in which it makes 7 or 8 attempts at
connecting but it ultimately gives up.

One should run the following command to test:

pon ufreevpn debug dump logfd 2 nodetach

pppd options in effect:
debug   # (from command line)
nodetach# (from command line)
persist # (from /etc/ppp/peers/ufreevpn)
logfd 2 # (from command line)
dump# (from command line)
noauth  # (from /etc/ppp/peers/ufreevpn)
remotename ukvpn.ufreevpn.com   # (from /etc/ppp/peers/ufreevpn)
# (from /etc/ppp/peers/ufreevpn)
pty pptp ukvpn.ufreevpn.com --nolaunchpppd  # (from 
/etc/ppp/peers/ufreevpn)
lcp-echo-failure 4  # (from /etc/ppp/options)
lcp-echo-interval 30# (from /etc/ppp/options)
hide-password   # (from /etc/ppp/options)
ipparam ukvpn.ufreevpn.com  # (from /etc/ppp/peers/ufreevpn)
defaultroute# (from /etc/ppp/peers/ufreevpn)
usepeerdns  # (from /etc/ppp/peers/ufreevpn)
nobsdcomp   # (from /etc/ppp/peers/ufreevpn)
nodeflate   # (from /etc/ppp/peers/ufreevpn)
require-mppe-128# (from /etc/ppp/peers/ufreevpn)
noipx   # (from /etc/ppp/options)
using channel 69
Using interface ppp0
Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/pts/2
sent [LCP ConfReq id=0x1]
rcvd [LCP ConfReq id=0x1
 ]
No auth is possible
sent [LCP ConfRej id=0x1 ]
sent [LCP ConfReq id=0x1]
rcvd [LCP ConfAck id=0x1]
rcvd [LCP ConfReq id=0x2]
sent [LCP ConfAck id=0x2]
sent [LCP EchoReq id=0x0 magic=0x71258109]
MPPE required, but MS-CHAP[v2] auth not performed.
sent [LCP TermReq id=0x2 "MPPE required but not available"]
rcvd [LCP ConfAck id=0x1]
rcvd [LCP TermReq id=0x3 "peer refused to authenticate"]
sent [LCP TermAck id=0x3]
rcvd [LCP TermAck id=0x2]
Connection terminated.
using channel 70

It repeats this routine through 7 more channels. What
does one see when it works?

Thank you.

Martin McCormick


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/20150804012931.RBJX8837.txofep01.suddenlink.net@localhost