As you may recall from the Media Player hardware review, the Linksys 1600 does not recognise the .M4V file suffix. This suffix is used by CNN amongst others. In order to make these files play the suffix needs to be changed to .MP4. The files then play without any further problem so the underlying file format is obviously the same.
As Nomad suffers from terminal laziness the task of doing this manually did not appeal. Clearly a batch file was needed for the job. In fact a batch file has been running for some weeks which copies files for the 3 CNN feeds. Could this be modified to scan through all the Miro feeds and copy any files as neccessary? The problem occupied much of Nomads Sunday. DOS Batch files are a highly frustrating medium; you think you are about to solve the problem and then you discover you are back at the start. Bearing in mind that Sunday was a particularily pleasant and sunny day, it is clear that Nomad needs to develop other interests and generally get a life.
Anyway, lets get on with it. There are 2 batch files needed. The first file, named "xSuffix.bat", scans through the sub-directories in the Miro folder. Each sub-directory corresponds to a Miro feed. The first file then calls the second file named "ySuffix.bat" and supplies the sub-directory name. The second file moves to the sub-directory and copies any .M4V files to a .MP4 file. Obviously it would be faster to rename the existing file instead of creating a copy; however Miro would then lose track of what it had.
To fully automate the task you need to go to the Control Panel in Windows and create a Scheduled Task that runs every 15 minutes lets say. This works fine but has the disconcerting effect that a new window pops up in the middle of what you are doing every time the task runs. To get rid of this create a shortcut to the "xSuffix.bat" file and in the shortcut properties select "minimized" (sic). Now change the scheduled task to call the shortcut instead of the batch file. Windows will 'helpfully' replace the shortcut with the referenced batch file if you try selection by "browse". You need to manually enter the full path and filename (including the .LNK suffix) for the shortcut. Now the process will run automatically and can be seen to momentarily appear in the task bar.
There are other things that could be automated. Deletion of out of date files would be very useful. For now I seem to have run out of enthusiasm, perhaps it could be a job for a rainy day.
xSuffix.bat:
@echo off
rem change suffix on mpeg-4 files for media player compatability
D:
cd "D:\My Videos\Miro\"
for /f "delims=" %%a IN ('dir /b /s /a:d') do call ySuffix.bat "%%a"
ySuffix.bat:
@echo off
cd "%1"
xcopy *.m4v *.mp4 /D /Y
cd..
Tuesday, 28 April 2009
Sunday, 26 April 2009
Anachronistic?
Nomad had intended that his next post would be a detailed examination of the letter of the law. For reasons he does not wish to allude to, this project will now be postponed until later in the year. Instead he is going to review various technical issues for the next few weeks.
Before moving on though, Nomad cant help poking fun at the law. It is such an easy target. What do you make of this:
In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), "television receiver" means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.
The law thinks you can send television signals by "Wireless Telegraphy" does it? Imagine a poor radio operator furiously operating his morse key while manually running a ruler down each frame of the picture. With a really good operator you might possibly get a rate of one frame an hour.
During the 1940s Wireless Telegraphy (W/T) meant using morse code to send signals by radio. This was in distinction to the other system in use at the time, which was Radio Telephony (R/T) meaning the use of voice to send signals by radio. Which information is unlikely to be of any use to you unless you are watching a film dating from the period. Astonishingly the law is making definitions using langauge which nobody has used for about 50 years and which even then meant something different.. Not surprisingly then that it is struggling to cope with current developments in technology.
Incidentally, if you should get dragged into court do not mention this point. To the English legal mind "Wireless Telegraphy" refers to any use of a radio signal. The judge may not take kindly to the idea that the legal system has not moved on since the 1930s. How do you think the law might describe other technologies though? What about "gramophone transmission" (audio podcasting), or possibly "Telegraphised Movie Picture" (video podcasting).
Before moving on though, Nomad cant help poking fun at the law. It is such an easy target. What do you make of this:
In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), "television receiver" means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.
The law thinks you can send television signals by "Wireless Telegraphy" does it? Imagine a poor radio operator furiously operating his morse key while manually running a ruler down each frame of the picture. With a really good operator you might possibly get a rate of one frame an hour.
During the 1940s Wireless Telegraphy (W/T) meant using morse code to send signals by radio. This was in distinction to the other system in use at the time, which was Radio Telephony (R/T) meaning the use of voice to send signals by radio. Which information is unlikely to be of any use to you unless you are watching a film dating from the period. Astonishingly the law is making definitions using langauge which nobody has used for about 50 years and which even then meant something different.. Not surprisingly then that it is struggling to cope with current developments in technology.
Incidentally, if you should get dragged into court do not mention this point. To the English legal mind "Wireless Telegraphy" refers to any use of a radio signal. The judge may not take kindly to the idea that the legal system has not moved on since the 1930s. How do you think the law might describe other technologies though? What about "gramophone transmission" (audio podcasting), or possibly "Telegraphised Movie Picture" (video podcasting).
Thursday, 23 April 2009
Oops....Actually
For those who read my last post, it seems I may have spoken too soon. I should probably read the full report from the BBC Trust. It seems that the BBC Trust is somewhat less complacent than 'the corporation' itself and has spotted the potential that download on demand offers.
Hang on a minute, surely the Trust was set up to keep an eye on 'the corporation' and stop its worst excesses. Now it turns out that the Trust is really watching out for their best mates and the index linked pensions that the Licence Fee funds. Surprised?
See this link:
http://www.paidcontent.co.uk/entry/419-bbc-trust-says-license-fee-for-online-tv-is-unclear/
Hang on a minute, surely the Trust was set up to keep an eye on 'the corporation' and stop its worst excesses. Now it turns out that the Trust is really watching out for their best mates and the index linked pensions that the Licence Fee funds. Surprised?
See this link:
http://www.paidcontent.co.uk/entry/419-bbc-trust-says-license-fee-for-online-tv-is-unclear/
Sunday, 19 April 2009
The Law is an Ass….Excellent!
When Microsoft decided to bundle Windows Media Player as part of Windows 98 it is unlikely that they considered what the effect on UK Licensing policy might be. In fact it appears to have taken several years f
or the government to latch on to the possibilities.
Windows Media Player includes support for streaming video. Eh? In English this means you can watch television over the internet. All that is needed is a co-operative TV station that feeds its output onto the internet and you can log on from anywhere in the world. To be honest the picture quality is not usually very good and things may freeze or drop out entirely. Ten years ago most people were still using dial up modems to connect to the internet, so the threat posed by Internet TV would not have seemed very credible. By the time the powers that be woke up to what was going on, it turned out that most of the country already had a PC with bundled software installed that could be used to watch internet TV.
In 2003 the government reformed the law to keep up to date with the latest developments in technology. You might expect that this would have resolved the situation. This blog thinks that they have made a complete horlicks of things. That is no bad thing for us though; the situation is wide open to exploit.
If you have installed a television set that can pick up signals from the nearest transmitter mast then you need a licence. If you have installed a PC that can receive streaming video from an internet TV feed then a licence is not needed. You might think that all technologies would be equal in the eyes of the law but clearly this is not the case. Obviously you need a licence to actually watch live TV over the internet, but how is this policed? Do TV Licensing have a database of which IP address belongs to which licence? It seems unlikely.
In an even more abstruse and difficult to enforce distinction, the law distinguishes between a live streaming feed and download of a pre-recorded file. Internet TV without a licence may not be legal but YouTube, BBC iPlayer and video podcasting can all be accessed as much as you like without a licence in sight.
How did we get here? The point is worth examining. Obviously the government could simply require that a TV Licence is purchased by anyone that connects to the internet. This would not be popular. In particular "Internet tax" (as we shall call this idea) would offend small businesses and students. Fortunately these two groups are fairly vocal and have, for the most part, sympathetic support from the wider community. The government simply will not risk upsetting two groups of people that might influence wider public opinion.
Some will say that the legality of using video podcasting without a TV Licence is a technical loophole that could be closed at any time in a review of the regulations. My argument is that the loophole is the result of a deliberate choice by the government. The existing legislation is a compromise and the circumstances that led to the compromise have not changed. In fact the policy of 'the corporation' appears to be not to draw attention to the problem in the hope that people will not notice.
Unfortunately for them, some of us have noticed.
or the government to latch on to the possibilities.Windows Media Player includes support for streaming video. Eh? In English this means you can watch television over the internet. All that is needed is a co-operative TV station that feeds its output onto the internet and you can log on from anywhere in the world. To be honest the picture quality is not usually very good and things may freeze or drop out entirely. Ten years ago most people were still using dial up modems to connect to the internet, so the threat posed by Internet TV would not have seemed very credible. By the time the powers that be woke up to what was going on, it turned out that most of the country already had a PC with bundled software installed that could be used to watch internet TV.
In 2003 the government reformed the law to keep up to date with the latest developments in technology. You might expect that this would have resolved the situation. This blog thinks that they have made a complete horlicks of things. That is no bad thing for us though; the situation is wide open to exploit.
If you have installed a television set that can pick up signals from the nearest transmitter mast then you need a licence. If you have installed a PC that can receive streaming video from an internet TV feed then a licence is not needed. You might think that all technologies would be equal in the eyes of the law but clearly this is not the case. Obviously you need a licence to actually watch live TV over the internet, but how is this policed? Do TV Licensing have a database of which IP address belongs to which licence? It seems unlikely.
In an even more abstruse and difficult to enforce distinction, the law distinguishes between a live streaming feed and download of a pre-recorded file. Internet TV without a licence may not be legal but YouTube, BBC iPlayer and video podcasting can all be accessed as much as you like without a licence in sight.
How did we get here? The point is worth examining. Obviously the government could simply require that a TV Licence is purchased by anyone that connects to the internet. This would not be popular. In particular "Internet tax" (as we shall call this idea) would offend small businesses and students. Fortunately these two groups are fairly vocal and have, for the most part, sympathetic support from the wider community. The government simply will not risk upsetting two groups of people that might influence wider public opinion.
Some will say that the legality of using video podcasting without a TV Licence is a technical loophole that could be closed at any time in a review of the regulations. My argument is that the loophole is the result of a deliberate choice by the government. The existing legislation is a compromise and the circumstances that led to the compromise have not changed. In fact the policy of 'the corporation' appears to be not to draw attention to the problem in the hope that people will not notice.
Unfortunately for them, some of us have noticed.
Lets stop the state controlling our media
The current unease with 'the corporation' (as the BBC is known on this blog) can be divided into four areas. Obviously you may slice the cake differently but here is my take.
The first topic is standards. Since the dawn of time 'the corporation' has been telling us that the existence of a "non commercial" broadcaster raises standards across the board. In order to prove themselves wrong they then spent a great deal of money employing Jonathan Ross. Obviously Jonathan's lack of moral judgement causes him to stand out but in the general trend to chase ratings his is not an isolated case.
Secondly there is trust. We grew up naively placing our trust in Blue Peter. "Let nation speak truth unto nation" was Reith's motto. We believed it all. But now we know that Blue Peter was playing fast and loose with the truth, so how can we really trust the current affairs programming any more.
Which leads neatly to the topic of bias. Perhaps this a minority view but it is a significant one. Personally I think that the BBC is overly trusted by many people and that therefore its bias is often not percieved. In general its bias is fairly subtle and will not be picked up by those who do not watch other news providers.
Finally there is cost. Like most government organisations 'the corporation' is not very efficient in managing its budget. In order to get the money it sometimes employs rather unethical tactics to collect from the vulnerable.
What can be done about any of this? Unfortunately there is no easy answer. 45000 people complained about Ross and Brand's Sachsgate abuse. Has Ross been fired? In less than a year 32000 people have complained about the tactics of TV Licensing. Has anything changed? How can an organisation be so unresponsive to its customers? Only because it has no financial accountability. The Licence Fee (or Tax as it should be called) is collected from anyone watching any channel. Clearly if a commercial broadcaster had employed Ross then they would have ditched him when he became a liability. Only a state sponsored organisation has the backing to tough out that sort of storm.
The state has no place running broadcasting media. Perhaps during the war the government could argue that in order to combat the Nazi menace it needed control of the airwaves, there is no such credible argument these days.
The idea of nationalised industries is deeply discredited these days. Indeed Britain has led the world in showing that toxic government owned industries can be turned round in the private sector. The British government has given up running railways, airlines, telephones, coal mines, electricity generation, gas distribution, steel manufacture and various other enterprises. In most cases the outcome has been a newly profitable industry and vastly improved consumer choice. The question is why the British government feels that it needs to run a television station and numerous radio stations.
Some will say that the BBC provides for public service and minority interests that commercial channels based on advertising or subscription would ignore. Fair enough, the government should provide public service obligation contracts which any organisation can bid for. A similar system already exists for allocating railway franchises. If there is a need to fund a Gaelic language broadcasting service in the Scottish Highlands; then bids should be requested for this job. Similarly, operation of Radio 4's Droitwich transmitter has a role in the governments emergency planning which may justify direct support. As incumbent the BBC might well win these contracts but only if it was able to demonstrate that it was providing a quality product and value for money. Clearly there is no need for the government to fund entertainment channels in England as this is a commercially viable operation.
The BBC claims that it provides value for money. Indeed there are people who state that they are happy to pay the licence fee. I have no quarrel with these arguments, I simply ask that they accept the logic of their own argument and put their claims to the test. The technology exists to encode transmissions and ensure that only subscribers can view transmissions. If people are happy to pay for the BBC then that is thier choice and I will respect it. As of today my choice is not to watch the BBC and I would ask that my choices are respected and my rights not infringed.
Allowing consumers choice is the best guarantee of quality output. Simply throwing government money (the licence fee) at a single organisation will inevitably produce a complacent and slack system which can ignore what the consumers want.
The first topic is standards. Since the dawn of time 'the corporation' has been telling us that the existence of a "non commercial" broadcaster raises standards across the board. In order to prove themselves wrong they then spent a great deal of money employing Jonathan Ross. Obviously Jonathan's lack of moral judgement causes him to stand out but in the general trend to chase ratings his is not an isolated case.
Secondly there is trust. We grew up naively placing our trust in Blue Peter. "Let nation speak truth unto nation" was Reith's motto. We believed it all. But now we know that Blue Peter was playing fast and loose with the truth, so how can we really trust the current affairs programming any more.
Which leads neatly to the topic of bias. Perhaps this a minority view but it is a significant one. Personally I think that the BBC is overly trusted by many people and that therefore its bias is often not percieved. In general its bias is fairly subtle and will not be picked up by those who do not watch other news providers.
Finally there is cost. Like most government organisations 'the corporation' is not very efficient in managing its budget. In order to get the money it sometimes employs rather unethical tactics to collect from the vulnerable.
What can be done about any of this? Unfortunately there is no easy answer. 45000 people complained about Ross and Brand's Sachsgate abuse. Has Ross been fired? In less than a year 32000 people have complained about the tactics of TV Licensing. Has anything changed? How can an organisation be so unresponsive to its customers? Only because it has no financial accountability. The Licence Fee (or Tax as it should be called) is collected from anyone watching any channel. Clearly if a commercial broadcaster had employed Ross then they would have ditched him when he became a liability. Only a state sponsored organisation has the backing to tough out that sort of storm.
The state has no place running broadcasting media. Perhaps during the war the government could argue that in order to combat the Nazi menace it needed control of the airwaves, there is no such credible argument these days.
The idea of nationalised industries is deeply discredited these days. Indeed Britain has led the world in showing that toxic government owned industries can be turned round in the private sector. The British government has given up running railways, airlines, telephones, coal mines, electricity generation, gas distribution, steel manufacture and various other enterprises. In most cases the outcome has been a newly profitable industry and vastly improved consumer choice. The question is why the British government feels that it needs to run a television station and numerous radio stations.
Some will say that the BBC provides for public service and minority interests that commercial channels based on advertising or subscription would ignore. Fair enough, the government should provide public service obligation contracts which any organisation can bid for. A similar system already exists for allocating railway franchises. If there is a need to fund a Gaelic language broadcasting service in the Scottish Highlands; then bids should be requested for this job. Similarly, operation of Radio 4's Droitwich transmitter has a role in the governments emergency planning which may justify direct support. As incumbent the BBC might well win these contracts but only if it was able to demonstrate that it was providing a quality product and value for money. Clearly there is no need for the government to fund entertainment channels in England as this is a commercially viable operation.
The BBC claims that it provides value for money. Indeed there are people who state that they are happy to pay the licence fee. I have no quarrel with these arguments, I simply ask that they accept the logic of their own argument and put their claims to the test. The technology exists to encode transmissions and ensure that only subscribers can view transmissions. If people are happy to pay for the BBC then that is thier choice and I will respect it. As of today my choice is not to watch the BBC and I would ask that my choices are respected and my rights not infringed.
Allowing consumers choice is the best guarantee of quality output. Simply throwing government money (the licence fee) at a single organisation will inevitably produce a complacent and slack system which can ignore what the consumers want.
Friday, 3 April 2009
Media Player Hardware Review
I currently use the Linksys Kiss 1600 and this is the only unit I have hands on experience off. All the other reviews are based on looking at the literature. As far as I can tell it would be legal to use most of the units discussed without a TV Licence; the exceptions are the Netgear ITV 2000 and the Sling Catcher.
Linksys Kiss 1600 (£80 at Dabs.com)
For the price this is hard to beat. The unit is compatable with a PC running Windows XP and there is a small software app that must be set up on the PC so that the Media Player can find your video, audio and picture files. It also plays DVDs from a front loading tray and any files on a USB stick inserted in the back.It has an HDMI video output and separate audio outputs.
One problem I have found is that the unit does not recognise the .M4V file suffix (which for instance CNN use). This can be bodged by changing the suffix to .MP4 and the files play without problem. Another issue which may annoy some people is that support for internet radio is through a website setup by Linksys which is very badly organised.
Unfortunately this unit no longer appears on the Linksys website which probably means they have stopped production. There is still stock at Dabs.Com.
Linksys DMA 2200 (£127 at Dabs.com)
This unit is similar to the Kiss 1600 but requires a PC running Vista to interface with. This blog is no fan of Vista but if you are already running Vista on your PC then this would be a good choice. Hopefully Linksys will think about releasing some software that also lets you interface to an XP machine.
Apple TV - 40GB (£189 at Dabs.com)
If you have a Mac, an iPod, an iPhone, and other iGizmos then you really need one of these as well. I suspect this will work with files that you did not download from the iTunes store but why take the chance.
Netgear Entertainer EVA 8000 (£284 at Dabs.com)
This Netgear unit will work with Windows XP. A more upmarket version works with XP or Vista which saves you buying a new media player when you upgrade your PC. A major drawback compared with the Linksys boxes is that there is no DVD drive. However it does support a wider range of file formats than the Linksys box.
This unit is worth considering if your budget allows and you dont mind having a seperate DVD player.
Netgear ITV 2000 (Not yet on sale)
This unit is designed to interface direct to the internet and does not need a PC. It includes support for live streaming video. No doubt this is technically a fine product that provides good functionality. The problem is that if you do not have a TV Licence then the live streaming video function could land you in trouble even if you do not make use of that function. Whether this unit (or similar boxes) falls within the scope of the current regulations is something that will very likely be tested in a court at some point. If you dont mind the prospect of being a test case then this product could be what you are looking for.
Sling Media Sling Catcher (£195 at Dabs.com)
The Sling Catcher is a device that acquires a TV signal and forwards it as streaming video to somewhere on the net. For instance you can send TV pictures to your laptop. I think that clearly you would need a TV Licence for this; it is after all a TV receiver. There are a number of similar devices which are known as “place shifters”. For our purposes this class of devices are not what we need.
The ITV 2000 could be the start of a trend where manufacturers start supplying media players that all include support for live video feeds. For the moment however there is a good choice of products without this feature.
At present the Linksys units appear to offer the best combination of functionality and value. There are a number of other units which we have not covered here and a future edition may find time to look at them.
Linksys Kiss 1600 (£80 at Dabs.com)
For the price this is hard to beat. The unit is compatable with a PC running Windows XP and there is a small software app that must be set up on the PC so that the Media Player can find your video, audio and picture files. It also plays DVDs from a front loading tray and any files on a USB stick inserted in the back.It has an HDMI video output and separate audio outputs.
One problem I have found is that the unit does not recognise the .M4V file suffix (which for instance CNN use). This can be bodged by changing the suffix to .MP4 and the files play without problem. Another issue which may annoy some people is that support for internet radio is through a website setup by Linksys which is very badly organised.
Unfortunately this unit no longer appears on the Linksys website which probably means they have stopped production. There is still stock at Dabs.Com.
Linksys DMA 2200 (£127 at Dabs.com)
This unit is similar to the Kiss 1600 but requires a PC running Vista to interface with. This blog is no fan of Vista but if you are already running Vista on your PC then this would be a good choice. Hopefully Linksys will think about releasing some software that also lets you interface to an XP machine.
Apple TV - 40GB (£189 at Dabs.com)
If you have a Mac, an iPod, an iPhone, and other iGizmos then you really need one of these as well. I suspect this will work with files that you did not download from the iTunes store but why take the chance.
Netgear Entertainer EVA 8000 (£284 at Dabs.com)
This Netgear unit will work with Windows XP. A more upmarket version works with XP or Vista which saves you buying a new media player when you upgrade your PC. A major drawback compared with the Linksys boxes is that there is no DVD drive. However it does support a wider range of file formats than the Linksys box.
This unit is worth considering if your budget allows and you dont mind having a seperate DVD player.
Netgear ITV 2000 (Not yet on sale)
This unit is designed to interface direct to the internet and does not need a PC. It includes support for live streaming video. No doubt this is technically a fine product that provides good functionality. The problem is that if you do not have a TV Licence then the live streaming video function could land you in trouble even if you do not make use of that function. Whether this unit (or similar boxes) falls within the scope of the current regulations is something that will very likely be tested in a court at some point. If you dont mind the prospect of being a test case then this product could be what you are looking for.
Sling Media Sling Catcher (£195 at Dabs.com)
The Sling Catcher is a device that acquires a TV signal and forwards it as streaming video to somewhere on the net. For instance you can send TV pictures to your laptop. I think that clearly you would need a TV Licence for this; it is after all a TV receiver. There are a number of similar devices which are known as “place shifters”. For our purposes this class of devices are not what we need.
The ITV 2000 could be the start of a trend where manufacturers start supplying media players that all include support for live video feeds. For the moment however there is a good choice of products without this feature.
At present the Linksys units appear to offer the best combination of functionality and value. There are a number of other units which we have not covered here and a future edition may find time to look at them.
What to Avoid (Traps for the unwary)
Lets run through some things you should not do if you have no TV Licence and want to stay legal.
Do not have any equipment capable of receiving a television signal. If you can, get rid of your television and use a monitor instead. This removes any argument about whether your equipment can receive Television. Incidentally if your area has gone digital then an analogue TV with no digi-box should be a safe choice. If you are using a television make sure that the antenna cable is disconnected (put it somewhere out of reach like your loft). If you have an analogue TV then to be on the safe side you should detune all the channels. Select each channel in turn and tune it off any station so that no picture is visible. If you have a VCR connected to your system then you should repeat the de-tuning process on the VCR. Using a digital TV (Freeview) is a bad idea as these do not need to be tuned. Any digi-boxes (Sky or Freeview) should be safely stored away wherever you put the antenna cable.
Do not watch live streaming video. The regulations are pretty clear on this point. If you are watching a streaming video feed that shows the same picture as a television station (albeit there may be some seconds transmission delay) then you are watching “Television”. As the law sees it you will need a TV Licence if you do this. Perhaps the best approach here is not to use streaming video in any way even if you think the feed is not being broadcast.
Do not forget to cancel your subscription to Sky or cable. This would be an open and shut case if it goes to court and you have no TV Licence.
Do not let the TV Licensing Inspector into your house. This is a matter of personal preference. If you think you have nothing to hide, then you may see no harm in this. However my suspicion is that the people employed for this job are not that clued up on the difference between streaming video and downloading a podcast. They are likely to become suspicious and have to get expert help. This means yet another visit and this time they will start combing through what is on your computer. So my view is that you should assert your rights from the start and refuse them entry. They will likely threaten to get a warrant but in reality they are more likely to go away and annoy someone else.
Do not use iPlayer to download stuff from BBC. Alright I am probably being paranoid here but stay with me. At present it is perfectly legal to download video using iPlayer even if you have no TV Licence. However who knows whether 'the corporation' are monitoring who is using the system. They could be building up a database of who uses video download. If the law ever changes this could be very useful to them. In any case the point of this project is to get away from 'the corporation' and its malign influence; no point in wavering now.
Do not have any equipment capable of receiving a television signal. If you can, get rid of your television and use a monitor instead. This removes any argument about whether your equipment can receive Television. Incidentally if your area has gone digital then an analogue TV with no digi-box should be a safe choice. If you are using a television make sure that the antenna cable is disconnected (put it somewhere out of reach like your loft). If you have an analogue TV then to be on the safe side you should detune all the channels. Select each channel in turn and tune it off any station so that no picture is visible. If you have a VCR connected to your system then you should repeat the de-tuning process on the VCR. Using a digital TV (Freeview) is a bad idea as these do not need to be tuned. Any digi-boxes (Sky or Freeview) should be safely stored away wherever you put the antenna cable.
Do not watch live streaming video. The regulations are pretty clear on this point. If you are watching a streaming video feed that shows the same picture as a television station (albeit there may be some seconds transmission delay) then you are watching “Television”. As the law sees it you will need a TV Licence if you do this. Perhaps the best approach here is not to use streaming video in any way even if you think the feed is not being broadcast.
Do not forget to cancel your subscription to Sky or cable. This would be an open and shut case if it goes to court and you have no TV Licence.
Do not let the TV Licensing Inspector into your house. This is a matter of personal preference. If you think you have nothing to hide, then you may see no harm in this. However my suspicion is that the people employed for this job are not that clued up on the difference between streaming video and downloading a podcast. They are likely to become suspicious and have to get expert help. This means yet another visit and this time they will start combing through what is on your computer. So my view is that you should assert your rights from the start and refuse them entry. They will likely threaten to get a warrant but in reality they are more likely to go away and annoy someone else.
Do not use iPlayer to download stuff from BBC. Alright I am probably being paranoid here but stay with me. At present it is perfectly legal to download video using iPlayer even if you have no TV Licence. However who knows whether 'the corporation' are monitoring who is using the system. They could be building up a database of who uses video download. If the law ever changes this could be very useful to them. In any case the point of this project is to get away from 'the corporation' and its malign influence; no point in wavering now.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)