Large events possible disruption incoming.

Amazon Prime video have announced they will be streaming 4 live Premier League games for free.The games will be also available to stream for free to non prime members.
As we saw with their last live game streaming events there was disruption to some peoples connections. Those games were not free for non prime members. We can anticipate that with an even larger audience these next events may possibly cause disruption again.
Which games they will be streaming have not been decided so no dates and times yet.

BBC will also be showing 4 games live as well on air and the iplayer. There may be possible disruption on the iplayer to for those who don't have access to a TV.

Sky Sports will also be showing games live for free on Freeview. There might be disruption again from people with no access to a TV streaming online as well.

This is just a heads up to let people know and not a certainty there will be disruption.

Edited by deleted (Wed 03-Jun-20 14:55:01)

Monday, June 29, 8pm is the 1st game to be shown on Amazon.
Crystal Palace vs Burnley. Not a category A game. Might not be much demand.

How do they gatekeeper these Live events for non-TV License folks? I am among the people who have opted out of the License Fee and do not watch live TV. I am aware it covers live programming over the internet as well as cable or broadcast.

Maybe they will be sending out the "TV Detector vans" again - I didn't realise until now that you needed a TV license for live streaming Amazon services as well, but apparently you do. I guess it is no different to how they check if someone has plugged an aerial into their TV to watch live TV.

Hi,

FYI, you need a license for anything that either IS live or WAS live (i.e. a recording). Only if you use streaming services to watch non-live events like films or old shows do you NOT need a license.

HTH,

But how do they enforce it on something like Amazon? Are Amazon going to send a list of everyone that accessed the stream to the TV Licensing authority so they can check against the license database? Or are they going to go around knocking doors to check people without licenses to see if they are watching live TV?

In reply to a post by ian72:

But how do they enforce it on something like Amazon? Are Amazon going to send a list of everyone that accessed the stream to the TV Licensing authority so they can check against the license database? Or are they going to go around knocking doors to check people without licenses to see if they are watching live TV?

They can't check this (at the moment). They just expect people to be honest.

That works for most people but I am sure there will be a minority that like to get it free just like they use sites that have unlicensed films to get around paying for a movie.

In reply to a post by mking90031:

Hi,

FYI, you need a license for anything that either IS live or WAS live (i.e. a recording). Only if you use streaming services to watch non-live events like films or old shows do you NOT need a license.

HTH,

Does that apply to all recorded TV, or just iPlayer?

Watching iPlayer catchup of "live" events used to be free of licence requirement. Only relatively recently did the BBC try to restrict it to licence holders.

Edit: I think the answer is that it only applies to iPlayer. (My bold).

Do I need a TV Licence for all on demand programmes?

No. You don’t need a licence if you only ever watch on demand or catch up programmes on services other than BBC iPlayer* (and you also never watch live TV programmes on any channel, including on iPlayer).

You don’t need to be covered by a licence to watch any films or TV shows that you buy online.

*You don’t need a licence to watch S4C TV on demand or listen to radio on iPlayer. You also don’t need one to watch films or TV shows on iPlayer that you’ve bought on the BBC Store.

Edited by RobertoS (Fri 12-Jun-20 10:39:46)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Does that apply to all recorded TV, or just iPlayer?

Specifically, one needs a licence to watch live TV, record live TV in order to watch later, or to watch BBC iPlayer.

With catch up services the viewer is not the one doing the recording.

Agreed, was about to say the same thing.

Paul

Post deleted by RobertoS

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Does that apply to all recorded TV, or just iPlayer?

The law was changed, specifically for the iPlayer. It doesn't cover any other company, even for a 'live' event. I assume this is to do with income, as the iPlayer doesn't carry adverts, and a lot of people (by age group) have given up watching traditional channels, and watch programmes via the streaming services.

This is getting confusing. An unnecessary discussion arising from mking's slight mistake.

I originally replied to a post by him, disagreeing with one of the points he made. On the grounds of a specific section of the "tvlicencing" website information. I provided a link to that website.

Then Oliver and Paul pointed out something I had missed, that is largely common knowledge. I explained to them in my frequently over-long explanation my not covering that point in the first place.

That process led me to realise many other valid points could be raised, including the one you have just have done. So deleted that post within minutes.

Now you raise this.

I was at the start 98% sure of the regulations, hence my reply to mking following checking up on that site.

The reason I did not recite in less formal and legalistic language than the site itself I hope is obvious.

.

Also a point of note, that if you watch live via BBC online, it is not live. There is a noticeable lag of around 20 seconds.

It is live, and counts as such.

Just the natural result of using the internet and its unavoidable latency.

DAB radio is the same.

One of my hobby horses, (there are several), is the time signal. Years ago it was three pips, with IIRC the first signifying whatever time it was. Which made the second and third mere reminders. Accurately setting a clock or watch by it was difficult.

Whether or not I remember correctly, the six-pip system where the usually elongated sixth pip signifies the exact moment, is total garbage on DAB for the same reason. It is quite a bit behind the FM signal.

Digital encoding versus Analogue.

Errr, yes!

I am not stoopid!

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Errr, yes!
I am not stoopid!

Ahh, too late at night, it should have been "Disadvantage of digital over analogue", and the need to use new systems (e.g. NTP, or GPS) for time sync. Or even the Anthorn signal.

I thought it was odd.

I do try to set my watches and clocks by taking what my weather station says LOL.That's probably the nearest I'll get. Or possibly my phone with WiFi off. Or my GPS-enabled dash cam.

In truth it's more a case of pointing out the amusing futility of all the effort and money that was put in over the years to get the time signals as accurate as possible, and now they are mostly all over the place. Plus successive governments and the Beeb all wanting us to ditch FM radio and change to DAB.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

In truth it's more a case of pointing out the amusing futility of all the effort and money that was put in over the years to get the time signals as accurate as possible, and now they are mostly all over the place. Plus successive governments and the Beeb all wanting us to ditch FM radio and change to DAB.

I always found the push for DAB to be politics over technology. Luckily mobile phone networks have improved as has internet access, so you can get "digital radio" in better quality without the hassle of DAB. (or DAB+).

In terms of time sync, for IT systems that I have built in the past, we used both GPS (antenna on roof) and NTP sync from the National Physics lab. This was shared around the network, so we just checked our PCs.

Using the pips on Radio 4 seems a bit 1980s now.

I have a friend who still refers to the Home Service and the Third Programme.

I prefer the light programme

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I have a friend who still refers to the Home Service and the Third Programme.

In reply to a post by mking90031:

Hi,

FYI, you need a license for anything that either IS live or WAS live (i.e. a recording). Only if you use streaming services to watch non-live events like films or old shows do you NOT need a license.

HTH,

YOU CAN LEGALLY WATCH ON DEMAND TV so long as it ain't the FAKE NEWS BBC Woke soon to be broke Iplayer

Edited by tommy45 (Mon 15-Jun-20 00:59:41)

PLEASE SHOUT A BIT LOUDER. I COULDN'T HEAR YOU LAST TIME.

if you want accurate time, get the "Casio Wave Ceptor Men's Watch WV-M60 " from amazon
also no faffing about when the clocks go back / forward, it does it by itself!!

a note about tv licencing - a single licence will cover the whole household, no matter how many TVs you have!! just make sure you notify TVL before you buy one...

Edited by comnut1 (Mon 15-Jun-20 09:02:13)

In reply to a post by comnut1:

a note about tv licencing - a single licence will cover the whole household, no matter how many TVs you have!! just make sure you notify TVL before you buy one...

The Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1967 (as amended) has been repealed, meaning that from 25 June 2013 onwards you no longer need to send us customer name and address details when you sell or rent out TV equipment.

It may sound like heresy to some here ... but I'd just point out that if people do simply lie about not using the BBC's services, and then don't pay for a license, then there is a potential problem down the line in that there won't be a BBC or ITV to be able to broadcast those football matches (or whatever) for those who want to see them "for free". Rupert Murdoch or his heirs will own it all - and the £240 a year you can pay him now will be as nothing once he owns it all!
Yes, it's 'popular' to claim that you "don't watch any programmes on the BBC", and that all you watch is Sky or Netflix (and remember that you can pay a very high price for that privilege) or that ITV is "free" - whilst conveniently forgetting that you pay for it through your 'everyday purchases' - but that's NOT an argument I want to enter into here. When this recent Coronavirus stuff kicked off it's reckoned by independent authorities that approximately 55% of the UK population tuned in to the BBC to find out what was happening. So there is a hard-core of people who do still use the BBC as their ultimate reference - even if they don't like to admit it (and to pay for it!).

In reply to a post by JohnUU2:

It may sound like heresy to some here ... but I'd just point out that if people do simply lie about not using the BBC's services, and then don't pay for a license, then there is a potential problem down the line in that there won't be a BBC or ITV to be able to broadcast those football matches (or whatever) for those who want to see them "for free". Rupert Murdoch or his heirs will own it all - and the £240 a year you can pay him now will be as nothing once he owns it all!
Yes, it's 'popular' to claim that you "don't watch any programmes on the BBC", and that all you watch is Sky or Netflix (and remember that you can pay a very high price for that privilege) or that ITV is "free" - whilst conveniently forgetting that you pay for it through your 'everyday purchases' - but that's NOT an argument I want to enter into here. When this recent Coronavirus stuff kicked off it's reckoned by independent authorities that approximately 55% of the UK population tuned in to the BBC to find out what was happening. So there is a hard-core of people who do still use the BBC as their ultimate reference - even if they don't like to admit it (and to pay for it!).

I use the BBC, but only for their news and only on the website. Although, after the recent months worth of terrible biased news I'm not sure if i'll be using it for much longer. If the BBC want money, they need to be legally required to be impartial and unbiased (or as close to that as it's realistically possible).

In reply to a post by gary333:

I use the BBC, but only for their news and only on the website. Although, after the recent months worth of terrible biased news I'm not sure if i'll be using it for much longer. If the BBC want money, they need to be legally required to be impartial and unbiased (or as close to that as it's realistically possible).

Overall, the Beeb usually manage to upset everybody in roughly equal measure, so I suspect they may be more impartial than they are often given credit for

This seems to have gone off topic. It was originally a heads up to possible issues to peoples connections due to Amazon streaming live football as we saw here.
https://forums.thinkbroadband.com/zen/f/4631553-what...

In reply to a post by billford:

In reply to a post by gary333:

I use the BBC, but only for their news and only on the website. Although, after the recent months worth of terrible biased news I'm not sure if i'll be using it for much longer. If the BBC want money, they need to be legally required to be impartial and unbiased (or as close to that as it's realistically possible).

Overall, the Beeb usually manage to upset everybody in roughly equal measure, so I suspect they may be more impartial than they are often given credit for

That was the case in the past. However, it hasn’t been over the last couple of months.

Naturally you are entitled to your own opinion, however I suspect that others might disagree.

In reply to a post by MCM:

Naturally you are entitled to your own opinion, however I suspect that others might disagree.

I am sure there will be opposing views. One of the good points of our society is that we can still debate differences, beliefs, expectations and laws. Let's hope this continues and the news industry as a whole reflect on the disengagement and divsion they have fostered over the last couple of months.

"Rupert Murdoch or his heirs will own it all - and the £240 a year you can pay him now will be as nothing once he owns it all!"

You really need to get updated on who has a stake in companies and how much the average user spends on their Sky package.

In reply to a post by gary333:

In reply to a post by MCM:

Naturally you are entitled to your own opinion, however I suspect that others might disagree.

I am sure there will be opposing views. One of the good points of our society is that we can still debate differences, beliefs, expectations and laws. Let's hope this continues and the news industry as a whole reflect on the disengagement and divsion they have fostered over the last couple of months.

couple of months they have been brexit bashing since 2016 FAKE NEWS they never reported on the gilet jaune in France they protested for 70+ weeks not a peep from the bbc apart from the time the black block inflated their protest and set cars on fire ( fitting the biased bbc narratives ) there is a war going on in Dijon have they reported on this yet?

In reply to a post by tommy45:

they never reported on the gilet jaune in France they protested for 70+ weeks not a peep from the bbc

You really ought to try and publish fact rather than your own version of FAKE NEWS. If you go to the BBC News website and put "gilet jaune" into the search bar you get 14 pages of links to items on the BBC news web-site.

I see from this and other posts of yours that you like to spread faux news especially where it fits your own personal political agenda. You should note that many of us have a much broader knowledge as to what it true or false and are able to make our own judgements,