Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a TV licence to watch to catch up with their favourite shows

[Peter S Kirk]

On 16 May 2016 at 16:01, Geoff Smith Geoff Smith  
wrote:

> Do we not have a moderator who can put a stop to the verbal diarrhoea
> of this off-topic thread?
> At very least, will the perpetrators please take it off-group!
> 
> Geoff Smith

Here, here.

Chris - list owner: Please make this OT stop.

Cheers

___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a TV licence to watch to catch up with their favourite shows

[Jim web]

In article

Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a TV licence to watch to catch up with their favourite shows

[Geoff Smith]

Do we not have a moderator who can put a stop to the verbal diarrhoea
of this off-topic thread?
At very least, will the perpetrators please take it off-group!

Geoff Smith

On 16/05/2016, C E Macfarlane  wrote:
> Please see below for further OT discussion, otherwise please ignore ...
>
> www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-boun...@lists.infradead.org]On
>> Behalf Of Jim web
>> Sent: 16 May 2016 13:53
>> To: get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
>> Subject: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a TV licence to
>> watch to catch
>> up with their favourite shows
>>
>>
>> In article
>> ,
>>C E Macfarlane  wrote:
>>
>> > :-(The number of recent BBC changes that have broken
>> or withdrawn
>> >THEIR OWN services such as iPlayer even on
>> comparatively recently
>> >purchased consumer equipment tells you that
>> habitually they fail
>> >to plan ahead.
>>
>> Or that the makers of said "consumer equipment" fail to keep
>> up having been
>> given opportunities to be informed/involved. The BBC don't
>> make or sell
>> smart TVs, etc. They *have* had discussions, etc, with makers
>> in advance
>> about iplayer changes. If the BBC had never changed until all
>> the makers of
>> 'smart' (sic) TVs, 'net' radios, etc, did we'd probably still
>> be stuck with
>> low-rate WMA and Flash.
>
> You've raised this before, and you were as wrong then as before.  The BBC
> seems to be living in the past of twenty or more years ago where what it
> said, happened, but everyone else can see that this is no longer the case.
> The UK audio-visual equipment market is now a tiny drop in a global ocean,
> and no manufacturer can be expected to be continually making adjustments to
> their equipment for the sole benefit of the BBC and/or UK consumers.  The
> NUMBER, note that particular word, of changes introduced by the BBC over
> recent years that have broken consumer equipment is way beyond what any
> global manufacturer can reasonably be expected to allow for.
>
>> But once again, you're using this list for purposes different
>> to why it is
>> provided.
>
> As are you, and, worse still, you are going over ground that has been more
> than adequately covered before.
>
>
> ___
> get_iplayer mailing list
> get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
>

___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

RE: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a TV licence to watch to catch up with their favourite shows

[C E Macfarlane]

Please see below for further OT discussion, otherwise please ignore ...

www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html

> -Original Message-
> From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-boun...@lists.infradead.org]On
> Behalf Of Jim web
> Sent: 16 May 2016 13:53
> To: get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
> Subject: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a TV licence to
> watch to catch
> up with their favourite shows
>
>
> In article
> ,
>C E Macfarlane  wrote:
>
> > :-( The number of recent BBC changes that have broken
> or withdrawn
> > THEIR OWN services such as iPlayer even on
> comparatively recently
> > purchased consumer equipment tells you that
> habitually they fail
> > to plan ahead.
>
> Or that the makers of said "consumer equipment" fail to keep
> up having been
> given opportunities to be informed/involved. The BBC don't
> make or sell
> smart TVs, etc. They *have* had discussions, etc, with makers
> in advance
> about iplayer changes. If the BBC had never changed until all
> the makers of
> 'smart' (sic) TVs, 'net' radios, etc, did we'd probably still
> be stuck with
> low-rate WMA and Flash.

You've raised this before, and you were as wrong then as before.  The BBC
seems to be living in the past of twenty or more years ago where what it
said, happened, but everyone else can see that this is no longer the case.
The UK audio-visual equipment market is now a tiny drop in a global ocean,
and no manufacturer can be expected to be continually making adjustments to
their equipment for the sole benefit of the BBC and/or UK consumers.  The
NUMBER, note that particular word, of changes introduced by the BBC over
recent years that have broken consumer equipment is way beyond what any
global manufacturer can reasonably be expected to allow for.

> But once again, you're using this list for purposes different
> to why it is
> provided.

As are you, and, worse still, you are going over ground that has been more
than adequately covered before.


___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a TV licence to watch to catch up with their favourite shows

[Jim web]

In article
,
   C E Macfarlane  wrote:

> :-(   The number of recent BBC changes that have broken or withdrawn
>   THEIR OWN services such as iPlayer even on comparatively recently
>   purchased consumer equipment tells you that habitually they fail
>   to plan ahead.

Or that the makers of said "consumer equipment" fail to keep up having been
given opportunities to be informed/involved. The BBC don't make or sell
smart TVs, etc. They *have* had discussions, etc, with makers in advance
about iplayer changes. If the BBC had never changed until all the makers of
'smart' (sic) TVs, 'net' radios, etc, did we'd probably still be stuck with
low-rate WMA and Flash.

But once again, you're using this list for purposes different to why it is
provided.

Jim

-- 
Electronics  http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html


___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a TV licence to watch to catch up with their favourite shows

[James Scholes]

The BBC have spent many years building their streaming infrastructure,
and that includes a huge amount of effort in recent years to:

* Launch the BBC Nitro API;
* Widely deploy HLS streamms;
* Start deploying MPEG DASH streams, which still is not complete but is
ongoing;
* Build SAML-based authentication into their mediaselector API for use
by the BBC Store;
* More internal or minor projects which we don't yet know about.

I have a hard time believing that the BBC would throw all of that away
and leave it to a third party company to implement.  Just imagine how
many millions have already gone into those projects I listed above?

Granted, on the user interface/experience side of things, they will have
to implement changes.  But get_iplayer has never bothered itself with
how the BBC's websites/apps look.  And no matter what they do, network
traffic can always be sniffed from their apps to work out what is going
on if they do lock things down.  So I think we're jumping to conclusions
based on a very vaguely-worded document.
-- 
James Scholes
http://twitter.com/JamesScholes

___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a TV licence to watch to catch up with their favourite shows

[Jonathan Larmour]

On 14/05/16 20:36, Rob Wood wrote:
> Have a look at this
> 
> http://publicsectortenders.net/index.php?name=News=article=40256=PublicSectorTenders

Oh dear. The fact the BBC are not doing it in-house, and instead choosing a
tender specifically for the lowest bidder ("most economic tender"), makes it
more likely that there won't even be Linux support, nevermind anything
get_iplayer can inter-operate with.

If it was just a case of extending BBC iD I'm sure that could be done
in-house, so this must be something much larger and more complicated given the
budget of £3-5 million.

I also feel sorry for most "smart" TV owners as their built-in iPlayer apps
tend to get obsoleted after a few years when the manufacturer stops bothering
to provide updates (which for example is true for my TV too, although GiP has
avoided that being a problem). When authentication is required, a lot of
manufacturers are simply not going to bother putting in the effort to update
apps for "old" TVs, i.e. anything not currently in the shops.

If anyone on the list has relevant contacts in the BBC, it would be
interesting to know what they have in mind.

Jifl


___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a TV licence to watch to catch up with their favourite shows

[S Carr]

Enough.

___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

RE: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a TV licence to watch to catch up with their favourite shows

[C E Macfarlane]

Please see below for further brief OT discussion, otherwise please feel free
to ignore ...

www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html

> -Original Message-
> From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-boun...@lists.infradead.org]On
> Behalf Of Jim web
> Sent: 15 May 2016 12:21
> To: get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
> Subject: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a TV licence to
> watch to catch
> up with their favourite shows
>
> Well, OK, in a wide context... :-)
>
> I've never been particularly keen on the idea that two wrongs
> would equate
> to a right. Particularly if it may 'harm' an innocent party.
> (In this case
> the BBC.)

That argument rests on the government and the BBC being entirely seperate
and independent entities, which they are not because to an extent the one
determines the funding of and thereby controls the other.

> Allowing the BBC to arrange for people outwith the UK to pay
> and access
> strikes me as good for both sides.

I'm sure many would welcome this, and of course it would be a possibly
significant extra source of revenue.

> However none of that seems to me to justify people accessing without
> payment who are *in* the UK when they could simply pay the
> fee.

That is an unsupportable argument that you're making.

I don't have installed the qualifying equipment, and therefore don't have to
pay the Licence Fee.  Why should I volunteer to pay a tax that I don't
qualify to pay?  I don't have to pay Income Tax because my income is too
low, but by your logic above, I should pay it voluntarily anyway!  Or for a
more closely related example, those over 75 who are entitled not to pay the
Licence Fee should nevertheless pay it anyway!

The logical end to your argument would be that we all of us form an orderly
queue  -  after all, we are British  -  to hand over all our money to the
government, and for the government to apportion it back to support each of
us as and how it thinks fair and fit!

>   Using a
> 'loophole' seems to me rather akin to the way rich businesses
> dodge taxes
> by adopting a low profile and hiding what they're up to from
> scrutiny.

Again, this argument is flawed.  The two situations are not comparable
because, unlike rich businesses stowing assets abroad, I'm not hiding
anything from anyone, and I'm not breaking the law.

> the effect on the BBC's income has been becoming more marked,
> and needed
> dealing with.

As I've already agreed.

> Seems reasonable to me that people who can pay for a license,
> should, if
> they want access. Albeit with some agreed exemptions which
> people have come
> to some sort of democractic decision over for social reasons.
> Such *agreed*
> exemptions seem to me a fairer basis for some to bet 'free'
> access than a
> loophole. The problem then is not to have the BBC lose out as
> a result -
> e.g. the way the Government have transferred the burden of the 'free'
> licenses here for the over-75s so it now is essentially a cut
> in the BBCs
> net income.
>
> Hence I'd prefer to proceed on the basis of changing what
> exceptions and
> allowances might be made, based on individual circumstances.
> if the problem
> is lack of income, that should be dealt with on a socially
> agreed basis. If
> we want to tackle issues like tax dodging by the rich, then
> we should also
> tackles such issues for the disadvantaged, etc. By uncovering
> the details
> and *agreeing* what to do.

Yes, yes, but all this is 'magic moral fairies' again.  Whenever they appear
to solve the world's many wrongs, then it might be useful to pursue these
daydreams, but otherwise it's just pointless OT ramblings.


___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a TV licence to watch to catch up with their favourite shows

[Jim web]

In article
, C E
Macfarlane  wrote:

> > -Original Message- From: get_iplayer
> > [mailto:get_iplayer-boun...@lists.infradead.org]On Behalf Of Andy
> > Gascoigne Sent: 14 May 2016 20:11 Cc: get_iplayer Subject: Re: BBC
> > iPlayer viewers now need a TV licence to watch to catch up with
> > their favourite shows
> >
> > To be honest I am quite fed up with people who seem to think that
> > they have a right to watch BBC programmes "free".

> To be equally honest, I am quite fed up with people who seem to think
> that they have a right to preach to others.

> No system of funding anything is perfectly just.  You win some, you lose
> some.  In common with many who are fortunate enough to reach my age, I
> have survived various economic injustices.  Normally I don't choose to
> discuss these, partly because I suspect many of us could say the same,
> but when someone gets on their high arse, sorry horse, and preaches at
> me, perhaps it becomes time to see the wider context.

Well, OK, in a wide context... :-)

I've never been particularly keen on the idea that two wrongs would equate
to a right. Particularly if it may 'harm' an innocent party. (In this case
the BBC.)

Despite that, I can sympathise with people who would happily pay a license
fee, but have been denied the choice, or can't afford to, when they seek to
access BBC output anyway. Fortunately, I suspect that the ability for many
such people to pay and 'join' being able to get the material seems now to
be on the cards. 

Allowing the BBC to arrange for people outwith the UK to pay and access
strikes me as good for both sides. 

However none of that seems to me to justify people accessing without
payment who are *in* the UK when they could simply pay the fee. Using a
'loophole' seems to me rather akin to the way rich businesses dodge taxes
by adopting a low profile and hiding what they're up to from scrutiny. 

Of the two, the tax dodging seems a far more serious matter. Compared to
that, using the 'no license required' loophole seems fairly trivial. But
the effect on the BBC's income has been becoming more marked, and needed
dealing with. 

Seems reasonable to me that people who can pay for a license, should, if
they want access. Albeit with some agreed exemptions which people have come
to some sort of democractic decision over for social reasons. Such *agreed*
exemptions seem to me a fairer basis for some to bet 'free' access than a
loophole. The problem then is not to have the BBC lose out as a result -
e.g. the way the Government have transferred the burden of the 'free'
licenses here for the over-75s so it now is essentially a cut in the BBCs
net income.

Hence I'd prefer to proceed on the basis of changing what exceptions and
allowances might be made, based on individual circumstances. if the problem
is lack of income, that should be dealt with on a socially agreed basis. If
we want to tackle issues like tax dodging by the rich, then we should also
tackles such issues for the disadvantaged, etc. By uncovering the details
and *agreeing* what to do.

But as been said, this is not a political forum, nor a moral debate. So
please ignore the above, and I'll make no further comment.

Jim

-- 
Electronics  http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html


___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a TV licence to watch to catch up with their favourite shows

[Andy Gascoigne]

To be honest I am quite fed up with people who seem to think that they have a 
right to watch BBC programmes "free". 

Seriously how do they think these programmes are created, by the "magic BBC 
fairies"?

It really should not matter *how* you watch it; you watch it you pay a licence 
fee, simple as that. 

Stop freeloading and just pay your way like everyone else!!
___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a TV licence to watch to catch up with their favourite shows

[Ian Trimnell]

A very interesting perspective.  We don't have a TV license because we don't 
have a television nor do we watch live broadcasts on any computer or mobile 
device.  This is all in line with the reasons set out on the form that TV 
Licensing send us every now and then.

We only download, either using iPlayer or get_iplayer, the few programs we are 
really interested in.  Sometimes this may be as few a two or three a week.

Therefore, I am quite interested in knowing how long we have before we will not 
be able to watch those few programs.  We don't really think that we will want 
to spend the money on a license so would rather go without.

I do wonder how much extra income, over the additional costs involved, the BBC 
will actually gain.

Anyway, this is starting to get off topic again so I'll sign off.

Ian
(No television for over 35 years.)


> On 14 May 2016, at 15:33, Kevin Lynch  wrote:
> 
> The "problem" from BBC revenue collection point of view is that
> "students" and other licence "abstainers" are using the catchup
> iplayer loophole to forego paying the licence fee. The way the system
> works today is that they assume everyone in the country has to have a
> licence and then they send people to check out the deniers. As part of
> the "negotiations" the government was even proposing to make it a
> civil rather than criminal offence to not have a TV licence. This
> would have diminished the stick for people who don't pay TV licence
> and caused the BBC to lose revenue and increase cost of revenue
> collection.  I think that is the simplest and most cost effective way
> of doing it today given the current regulatory/technical
> infrastructure and focus on cost of operation.
> 
> I don't think the proposed changes will have any short to medium term
> impact on GiP.
> 
> In the announcement it is proposed that the licence fee system will be
> extended another 11 years. Towards the end I could imagine that they
> would pilot some business process to migrate licence fee payers to
> "family" or "household" subscriptions (like today's
> iTunes/Google/Microsoft/Netflix subscription plans). This would
> probably require primary legislation at the time.
> 
> The clues that these changes  would be coming would be a requirement
> to use a BBC id to access iPlayer content. The tieing of the id to a
> licence fee, restricting devices per BBC id. Given the knowhow and
> expertise of contributors here. We'll have at least 12-36 months of
> these sorts of changes/
> 
> regards
> 
> Kevin
> 
>> On 13 May 2016 at 17:33, James Scholes  wrote:
>> CJB wrote:
>>> ... snip ...
>> 
>> All very good content, but I fail to see how it answers, or even
>> addresses, the OP's question.  From a purely technical point of view, he
>> was interested whether new measures to prevent viewers from watching the
>> iPlayer without a valid TV license would have an impact on the
>> downloading of programs with get_iplayer.  The possible lockdown of BBC
>> streams has very little to do with politics and highjacking the thread
>> is just bad form, even if the content is worthy of attension.
>> --
>> James Scholes
>> http://twitter.com/JamesScholes
>> 
>> ___
>> get_iplayer mailing list
>> get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
> 
> ___
> get_iplayer mailing list
> get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a TV licence to watch to catch up with their favourite shows

[SquarePenguin]

Damn smart reply got me again...

 Forwarded Message 
Subject: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a TV licence to watch to catch
up with their favourite shows
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 12:53:31 +0100
From: SquarePenguin 
To: Majid Hussain 

On 13/05/2016 12:36, Majid Hussain wrote:
> how will this effect get_iplayer?

No one can tell exactly, it hasn't happened yet. I'm sure there will be
speculation but this is the actual answer right now.

> will it stop working or will it be okay?

See above.

> do we have any more info?

You can read the entire White Paper here[0]. If you skip to page 105
you'll see the timeline and note that the info just released was just
the White Paper[1] and the Draft charter isn't due for a few months and
won't go into effect until 01/01/2017.

[0]
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/522824/DCMS_A-BBC-for-the-future_linked__1_.pdf

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_paper



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a TV licence to watch to catch up with their favourite shows

[CJB]

There is a large campaign at 38Degrees:

NOTES:
[1] The Times quote was on the front page of the paper yesterday. It
is also on the internet but it is behind a paywall:
The Times: BBC stars keep pay deals secret after government climbdown:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bbc-stars-keep-pay-deals-secret-after-government-climbdown-qpk32dxmh
[2] The Telegraph: BBC in row with John Whittingdale over
‘top-slicing’ licence fee to fund kids TV:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/13/bbc-in-row-with-john-whittingdale-over-top-slicing-licence-fee-t/
When new plans were floated to cut funding, forcing the closure of
CBeebies, over 157,176 of us signed the petition against these plans:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/save-cbeebies
[3] Guardian: It lacks the glamour of saving Strictly – but the BBC’s
new board must be resisted:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/12/dont-let-strictly-climbdown-fool-you-bbc-isnt-safe
As soon as it came out that there were plans to fill the BBC board
with government cronies, 38 Degrees members leapt into action. Over
275,000 of us signed an emergency petition to keep the BBC
independent:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/protect-bbc-hub
[4] Independent: BBC white paper: What the changes mean for you as a
viewer, at a glance:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/bbc-trust-abolished-and-replaced-with-board-of-governors-as-ofcom-confirmed-as-external-regulator-a7025646.html
Thousands of 38 Degrees members signed and shared petitions aimed at
protecting their favourite BBC shows from being forced out of the best
on-air time slots:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/protect-bbc-hub
[5] The BBC license fee has been extended until at least 2028:
Telegraph: BBC Charter renewal: What you need to know about the
Government's white paper changes:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/12/bbc-charter-renewal-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-governments/
Over 350,000 38 Degrees members signed the massive petition calling on
the government to protect the BBC:
38 Degrees: Protect our BBC:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/protect-BBC-petition-b
[6] Take a look at the 38 Degrees blog from July to see what we did
together as soon as we heard about the government’s plans:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/protect-our-bbc-blog
[7] “ Mr. Whittingdale has taken a much harder line on the BBC than
has Mr. Cameron, who, along with his No. 2, George Osborne, the
chancellor of the Exchequer, calls the broadcaster a great national
institution, if one with flaws.”
New York Times: BBC Faces Turning Point in Mission as Pressures Bear Down:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/10/world/europe/bbc-british-broadcasting-corporation-charter.html
[8] Tens of thousands of us have chipped in for so many different
things to protect the BBC. Here’s just one example where 38 Degrees
members chipped in to expose Murdoch’s dodgy dealings:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/murdoch-donate-reached


On 13/05/2016, Majid Hussain  wrote:
> hi there,
> just read this,
> http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/whats-on/film-news/bbc-iplayer-viewers-now-need-11323249
> how will this effect get_iplayer?
> will it stop working or will it be okay?
> do we have any more info?
> Majid Hussain
>
> ___
> get_iplayer mailing list
> get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
>

___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer