SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The BBC is to spy on internet users in their homes by deploying a new generation of Wi-Fi detection vans to identify those illicitly watching its programmes online.
The corporation has been given legal dispensation to use the new technology, which is typically only available to crime-fighting agencies, to enforce the new requirement that people watching BBC programmes via the iPlayer must have a TV licence.
Researchers at University College London disclosed that they had used a laptop running freely available software to identify Skype internet phone calls passing over encrypted Wi-Fi, without needing to crack the network password. They actually don't need to decrypt traffic, because they can already see the packets. They have control over the iPlayer, so they could ensure that it sends packets at a specific size, and match them up.
Source: The Telegraph [paywall]
Also covered by The Register.
n1: The existing TV detector van 'technology' has been in use in the UK since the 1950's, there has never been an explanation as to how they work. I am unaware of any occasions where evidence obtained by one was used to prosecute anyone.
A leaked internal document from the BBC gives a detailed breakdown of the state of licence fee payments and the number of people who evade the charge – but fails to make any mention of the detector vans.
While documenting the number of officers to collect the £145.50 fee increased to 334 this summer, an 18 page memo from the TV Licensing's Executive Management Forum obtained by the Radio Times makes no mention of the vans finding those who don't pay.
Source: The Telegraph (2013)
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Monday August 08 2016, @05:36PM
if the BBC had to compete day-to-day with other government departments for their share of the tax pot, that would remove the slim but important distinction between a public broadcasting service and a government broadcasting service.
Perhaps, then, they should switch to the voluntary pledge model of NPR in the United States. If the programming is good enough (Downton Abbey, Sherlock, Blackadder) there should be plenty of takers.
It's kinda like what RMS says about programming; you can deserve to be paid, or demand to be paid, but not both. The BBC deserves it; perhaps they should be less demanding.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:36AM
Perhaps, then, they should switch to the voluntary pledge model of NPR in the United States.
Possibly - but then they'd be beholden to big "special interest groups" of sponsors who'd want their say in content, or would lobby the public to withhold donations*. I've listened to NPR and not only are the endless recitations of the sponsors and appeals for money almost as bad as adverts on commercial TV, but the content is all a bit dull and worthy - a bit reminiscent BBC of the 1960s. (NPR talk radio vs. the pathologically eclectic BBC Radio 4 is an interesting contrast). The current BBC is very much a "full spectrum" broadcaster with a specific remit to produce diverse content for a range of audiences.
Personally, I think the "internet license" would be the only way forward for a "BBC as we know it" and I don't see that happening without unpleasant side-effects.
(*A lot of the anti-BBC astroturf is coming from the Murdoch press who I'm sure would jump at the chance of being legally able to call for a BBC boycott - based on some perfectly justified public interest issue of course & nothing remotely to do with wanting people to switch to Sky TV).
If the programming is good enough (Downton Abbey, Sherlock, Blackadder) there should be plenty of takers.
Downton Abbey isn't BBC - its ITV (commercial) as are several other high-quality UK programs (the Morse/Lewis/Endeavour series spring to mind) although whether it would have got made if ITV weren't driven to compete with BBCs reputation, or without the BBCs role in building the talent base, is a harder question.
It may be that we don't need public service broadcasting given the upsurge in "feature film quality" TV we're now seeing from cable and internet channels in the US.
Of course, the other "public service broadcasting" model is the UK Channel 4 [wikipedia.org] - although I think they've done more for films [wikipedia.org] than they have for TV (but they've commissioned more good TV than you'd think from the wikipedia article).