Discussion:
Panasonic 24 inch TV
(too old to reply)
Scott
2024-03-08 22:08:05 UTC
Permalink
I have bought a Panasonic TX-24MS480B 24 inch TV:
https://www.johnlewis.com/panasonic-tx-24ms480b-2023-led-hdr-hd-ready-720p-smart-android-tv-24-inch-with-freeview-play-black/p110545244
The sound is not too good. I have played around with all the settings
(and read the manual) but I cannot find any settings for treble, bass
or equalisation. Does this seem correct? Do other manufacturers offer
these settings? Am I expecting too much from a small TV? Has a sound
bar become a necessity these days?
Woody
2024-03-08 23:11:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
https://www.johnlewis.com/panasonic-tx-24ms480b-2023-led-hdr-hd-ready-720p-smart-android-tv-24-inch-with-freeview-play-black/p110545244
The sound is not too good. I have played around with all the settings
(and read the manual) but I cannot find any settings for treble, bass
or equalisation. Does this seem correct? Do other manufacturers offer
these settings? Am I expecting too much from a small TV? Has a sound
bar become a necessity these days?
Settings > Device Settings > Sound? (Use the Menu key on the remote.)

I have a 32MS360B also from JLP and had to take it back as it forgot
settings overnight even though it was on standby.

Pity as it had satellite as well which could be helpful on occasion. By
chance I picked up a Manhattan satbox for a song and that does a superb job.
Scott
2024-03-09 10:14:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woody
Post by Scott
https://www.johnlewis.com/panasonic-tx-24ms480b-2023-led-hdr-hd-ready-720p-smart-android-tv-24-inch-with-freeview-play-black/p110545244
The sound is not too good. I have played around with all the settings
(and read the manual) but I cannot find any settings for treble, bass
or equalisation. Does this seem correct? Do other manufacturers offer
these settings? Am I expecting too much from a small TV? Has a sound
bar become a necessity these days?
Settings > Device Settings > Sound? (Use the Menu key on the remote.)
I have a 32MS360B also from JLP and had to take it back as it forgot
settings overnight even though it was on standby.
Pity as it had satellite as well which could be helpful on occasion. By
chance I picked up a Manhattan satbox for a song and that does a superb job.
What settings did it forget? Also, I don't have an aerial at the
moment. I wanted to see if I could run it via Wi-Fi instead, but I
keep getting a message to retune the channels. Can I avoid this or is
is better to install an aerial?
Scott
2024-03-09 10:21:12 UTC
Permalink
PS Sound style, balance, sound surround and equaliser detail all
greyed out. I have no idea what system sounds means. Surely you can
only set up the sound when the programme is playing?
Jeff Gaines
2024-03-09 10:25:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
What settings did it forget? Also, I don't have an aerial at the
moment. I wanted to see if I could run it via Wi-Fi instead, but I
keep getting a message to retune the channels. Can I avoid this or is
is better to install an aerial?
I am streaming most things now, can you be sure from the settings that it
is definitely connected to your home network by WiFi or network cable?
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Remember, the Flat Earth Society has members all around the globe.
Scott
2024-03-09 11:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Gaines
Post by Scott
What settings did it forget? Also, I don't have an aerial at the
moment. I wanted to see if I could run it via Wi-Fi instead, but I
keep getting a message to retune the channels. Can I avoid this or is
is better to install an aerial?
I am streaming most things now, can you be sure from the settings that it
is definitely connected to your home network by WiFi or network cable?
Yes - it shows connected and displays Sky News and BBC iPlayer without
difficulty. I could not get Channel 4 News live and I am still having
problems with STV. All the time it asks me to scan channels. I have
tried this but of course no channels are found and the message
returns. Feeding in a coaxial cable would be a challenge.
Jeff Gaines
2024-03-09 13:49:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
Post by Jeff Gaines
Post by Scott
What settings did it forget? Also, I don't have an aerial at the
moment. I wanted to see if I could run it via Wi-Fi instead, but I
keep getting a message to retune the channels. Can I avoid this or is
is better to install an aerial?
I am streaming most things now, can you be sure from the settings that it
is definitely connected to your home network by WiFi or network cable?
Yes - it shows connected and displays Sky News and BBC iPlayer without
difficulty. I could not get Channel 4 News live and I am still having
problems with STV. All the time it asks me to scan channels. I have
tried this but of course no channels are found and the message
returns. Feeding in a coaxial cable would be a challenge.
I've just looked at the manual, you need a degree nowadays!

My Panasonic TV isn't smart but the Panasonic DVD player is and its main
menu gives a Freeview Play/Catch up option where things like iPlayer,
ITVX, 4 etc. live that provide access to streaming services.

The thing that pops up asking you to retune is a PITA but hitting Exit
makes it go away.

Can you receive STV (Scottish TV ???) without an aerial? Does it actually
stream live TV?
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Did you know on the Canary Islands there is not one canary?
And on the Virgin Islands same thing, not one canary.
Scott
2024-03-09 14:40:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Gaines
Post by Scott
Post by Jeff Gaines
Post by Scott
What settings did it forget? Also, I don't have an aerial at the
moment. I wanted to see if I could run it via Wi-Fi instead, but I
keep getting a message to retune the channels. Can I avoid this or is
is better to install an aerial?
I am streaming most things now, can you be sure from the settings that it
is definitely connected to your home network by WiFi or network cable?
Yes - it shows connected and displays Sky News and BBC iPlayer without
difficulty. I could not get Channel 4 News live and I am still having
problems with STV. All the time it asks me to scan channels. I have
tried this but of course no channels are found and the message
returns. Feeding in a coaxial cable would be a challenge.
I've just looked at the manual, you need a degree nowadays!
My Panasonic TV isn't smart but the Panasonic DVD player is and its main
menu gives a Freeview Play/Catch up option where things like iPlayer,
ITVX, 4 etc. live that provide access to streaming services.
The thing that pops up asking you to retune is a PITA but hitting Exit
makes it go away.
Can you receive STV (Scottish TV ???) without an aerial? Does it actually
stream live TV?
The manual is a nightmare. As well as a degree, a trip to Specsavers
would be useful.

This is a good question. I thought all TV could be streamed live, but
I could be wrong about that. I know how to do it on BBC and Sky, I
have done it on another TV with Channel 4. Maybe I should try ITV X
instead and put in an English postcode?
Jeff Gaines
2024-03-09 15:04:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
Post by Jeff Gaines
Post by Scott
Post by Jeff Gaines
Post by Scott
What settings did it forget? Also, I don't have an aerial at the
moment. I wanted to see if I could run it via Wi-Fi instead, but I
keep getting a message to retune the channels. Can I avoid this or is
is better to install an aerial?
I am streaming most things now, can you be sure from the settings that it
is definitely connected to your home network by WiFi or network cable?
Yes - it shows connected and displays Sky News and BBC iPlayer without
difficulty. I could not get Channel 4 News live and I am still having
problems with STV. All the time it asks me to scan channels. I have
tried this but of course no channels are found and the message
returns. Feeding in a coaxial cable would be a challenge.
I've just looked at the manual, you need a degree nowadays!
My Panasonic TV isn't smart but the Panasonic DVD player is and its main
menu gives a Freeview Play/Catch up option where things like iPlayer,
ITVX, 4 etc. live that provide access to streaming services.
The thing that pops up asking you to retune is a PITA but hitting Exit
makes it go away.
Can you receive STV (Scottish TV ???) without an aerial? Does it actually
stream live TV?
The manual is a nightmare. As well as a degree, a trip to Specsavers
would be useful.
This is a good question. I thought all TV could be streamed live, but
I could be wrong about that. I know how to do it on BBC and Sky, I
have done it on another TV with Channel 4. Maybe I should try ITV X
instead and put in an English postcode?
It's worth a try!

I think you need Freeview Play to stream live TV. If you can talk to it
how about telling it to play various things just to see what it can do. I
did that with a car radio once, pressing buttons, nothing happening, then
a voice said something like "what do you want to do?" and I said something
like "play the radio you b*****d" and it did!
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
If Björn & Benny had been called Syd and Dave then ABBA would have been
called ASDA.
Java Jive
2024-03-09 16:20:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
Post by Jeff Gaines
Can you receive STV (Scottish TV ???) without an aerial? Does it actually
stream live TV?
This is a good question. I thought all TV could be streamed live, but
I could be wrong about that. I know how to do it on BBC and Sky, I
have done it on another TV with Channel 4. Maybe I should try ITV X
instead and put in an English postcode?
Don't forget that for the major five channels, all these channel-bespoke
solutions seem set to disappear, and be replaced by a single common
platform:

https://www.techradar.com/streaming/what-is-freely-the-new-bbc-itv-and-channel-4-smart-tv-platform-explained
--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
Roderick Stewart
2024-03-10 09:47:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
Don't forget that for the major five channels, all these channel-bespoke
solutions seem set to disappear, and be replaced by a single common
https://www.techradar.com/streaming/what-is-freely-the-new-bbc-itv-and-channel-4-smart-tv-platform-explained
Interesting. On that web page it's described as "a new smart TV
streaming service that will allow users to watch live TV via the
internet for free".

I wonder if that means we wouldn't need a licence to watch it, because
that's what the words imply. Aside from the need to buy a licence,
with a Freeview receiver we can watch live TV for free anyway, so what
else would be changed by putting it on a streaming system?

Personally I don't see the appeal of going back to the olden days when
you could only watch TV programmes to somebody else's timetable
instead of your own, but if people want it that's up to them. It
certainly makes sense from a practical point of view for those with
fibre connections to use the same equipment for all their TV viewing.

Rod.
Scott
2024-03-10 11:00:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 09:47:16 +0000, Roderick Stewart
Post by Roderick Stewart
Post by Java Jive
Don't forget that for the major five channels, all these channel-bespoke
solutions seem set to disappear, and be replaced by a single common
https://www.techradar.com/streaming/what-is-freely-the-new-bbc-itv-and-channel-4-smart-tv-platform-explained
Interesting. On that web page it's described as "a new smart TV
streaming service that will allow users to watch live TV via the
internet for free".
I wonder if that means we wouldn't need a licence to watch it, because
that's what the words imply. Aside from the need to buy a licence,
with a Freeview receiver we can watch live TV for free anyway, so what
else would be changed by putting it on a streaming system?
Personally I don't see the appeal of going back to the olden days when
you could only watch TV programmes to somebody else's timetable
instead of your own, but if people want it that's up to them. It
certainly makes sense from a practical point of view for those with
fibre connections to use the same equipment for all their TV viewing.
I may be missing something but I want to watch Channel 4 News at 7 pm
and I cannot find Channel 4 live on the Channel 4 app. Likewise, I
cannot get STV but I can get Sky News and BBC iPlayer (live). This is
a Panasonic TV running with Android so I am wondering if there are
other options. At the moment I don't have an aerial and I thought it
could all be done via broadband, but the descriptions I have read are
confused (or at least the reader is confused).
Davey
2024-03-10 11:28:56 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 09:47:16 +0000
Post by Roderick Stewart
Post by Java Jive
Don't forget that for the major five channels, all these
channel-bespoke solutions seem set to disappear, and be replaced by
https://www.techradar.com/streaming/what-is-freely-the-new-bbc-itv-and-channel-4-smart-tv-platform-explained
Interesting. On that web page it's described as "a new smart TV
streaming service that will allow users to watch live TV via the
internet for free".
I wonder if that means we wouldn't need a licence to watch it, because
that's what the words imply. Aside from the need to buy a licence,
with a Freeview receiver we can watch live TV for free anyway, so what
else would be changed by putting it on a streaming system?
Personally I don't see the appeal of going back to the olden days when
you could only watch TV programmes to somebody else's timetable
instead of your own, but if people want it that's up to them. It
certainly makes sense from a practical point of view for those with
fibre connections to use the same equipment for all their TV viewing.
Rod.
"... a new smart TV streaming service that will allow users to watch
SOME specific live TV via the internet for free".
And bear in mind that the BBC requires you to have a license to watch
BBC TV, irrespective of how it gets to you. How much you obey that is
up to you.
--
Davey.
Scott
2024-03-10 11:48:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 09:47:16 +0000
Post by Roderick Stewart
Post by Java Jive
Don't forget that for the major five channels, all these
channel-bespoke solutions seem set to disappear, and be replaced by
https://www.techradar.com/streaming/what-is-freely-the-new-bbc-itv-and-channel-4-smart-tv-platform-explained
Interesting. On that web page it's described as "a new smart TV
streaming service that will allow users to watch live TV via the
internet for free".
I wonder if that means we wouldn't need a licence to watch it, because
that's what the words imply. Aside from the need to buy a licence,
with a Freeview receiver we can watch live TV for free anyway, so what
else would be changed by putting it on a streaming system?
Personally I don't see the appeal of going back to the olden days when
you could only watch TV programmes to somebody else's timetable
instead of your own, but if people want it that's up to them. It
certainly makes sense from a practical point of view for those with
fibre connections to use the same equipment for all their TV viewing.
Rod.
"... a new smart TV streaming service that will allow users to watch
SOME specific live TV via the internet for free".
Or maybe it is the NHS formulation 'free at the point of delivery'.
Medical treatment is not 'free' but paid for by tax and National
Insurance.
Post by Scott
And bear in mind that the BBC requires you to have a license to watch
BBC TV, irrespective of how it gets to you. How much you obey that is
up to you.
Technically I believe the licence is to watch *any* television channel
not just the BBC. Otherwise, people would have argued over the years
'I only watch ITV' to claim exemption from the TV licence.
Davey
2024-03-10 12:26:11 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 11:48:55 +0000
Post by Scott
Technically I believe the licence is to watch *any* television channel
not just the BBC. Otherwise, people would have argued over the years
'I only watch ITV' to claim exemption from the TV licence.
Quite possibly.
--
Davey.
Roderick Stewart
2024-03-10 13:34:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davey
On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 11:48:55 +0000
Post by Scott
Technically I believe the licence is to watch *any* television channel
not just the BBC. Otherwise, people would have argued over the years
'I only watch ITV' to claim exemption from the TV licence.
Quite possibly.
The exemption is that you can watch anything other than the BBC as
long as it's not "live", which effectively rules out conventional
broadcasts from a transmitter.

This assumes the modern meaning of "live", which apparently no longer
means "as the events you are watching are actually happening and are
not a recording", but "as the events you are watching are actually
being transmitted by one of the mainstream broadcasting channels, even
if it is a recording".

I'm not sure how much of this definition depends on the technology,
for example if a mainstream broadcaster were to put something *only*
online and not transmit it, would that count as a broadcast, or as a
"livestream"? Apparently online livestreams are also exempt, but only
from online slources that are not also transmitting them, so I'm not
sure if that would include such a thing from a traditional mainstream
broadcaster if it wasn't also transmitting it. The whole scheme is a
confusing mess, and the broadcasters and licence collectors don't seem
to be doing much to clarify it.

Rod.
Scott
2024-03-11 20:10:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 13:34:57 +0000, Roderick Stewart
Post by Roderick Stewart
Post by Davey
On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 11:48:55 +0000
Post by Scott
Technically I believe the licence is to watch *any* television channel
not just the BBC. Otherwise, people would have argued over the years
'I only watch ITV' to claim exemption from the TV licence.
Quite possibly.
The exemption is that you can watch anything other than the BBC as
long as it's not "live", which effectively rules out conventional
broadcasts from a transmitter.
This assumes the modern meaning of "live", which apparently no longer
means "as the events you are watching are actually happening and are
not a recording", but "as the events you are watching are actually
being transmitted by one of the mainstream broadcasting channels, even
if it is a recording".
So if they show the Coronation again, you need a licence to watch it?
Or the 1966 World Cup. Opening night of ITV?
Post by Roderick Stewart
I'm not sure how much of this definition depends on the technology,
for example if a mainstream broadcaster were to put something *only*
online and not transmit it, would that count as a broadcast, or as a
"livestream"? Apparently online livestreams are also exempt, but only
from online slources that are not also transmitting them, so I'm not
sure if that would include such a thing from a traditional mainstream
broadcaster if it wasn't also transmitting it. The whole scheme is a
confusing mess, and the broadcasters and licence collectors don't seem
to be doing much to clarify it.
I would have thought 'broadcast' was a more meaningful term than
'transmitted'. Gold (radio) is online only, so is it transmitted at
all (except if it's on satellite then it is transmitted, but is it
transmitted in the UK)? I agree it's big mess.
Roderick Stewart
2024-03-12 09:12:21 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 20:10:45 +0000, Scott
Post by Scott
Post by Roderick Stewart
This assumes the modern meaning of "live", which apparently no longer
means "as the events you are watching are actually happening and are
not a recording", but "as the events you are watching are actually
being transmitted by one of the mainstream broadcasting channels, even
if it is a recording".
So if they show the Coronation again, you need a licence to watch it?
Or the 1966 World Cup. Opening night of ITV?
If they show it at a scheduled time on a conventional broadcasting
service, then yes, you do need a licence. It may be a recording, but
according to the definition that seems to be the default now, it's
considered "live" if it's being broadcast.

If something is made available via an internet on-demand catchup
service (with the exception of BBC iPlayer) where you start the
playback of the recording yourself at a time of your choosing, then
you don't need a licence. It may be a recording of the same programme,
but the need to buy a licence depends on what you use to watch it.

We now have the problem of what to call a transmission showing events
at the same time as they are actually happening. We used to call it
"live" but we seem to have debased the term so we can no longer be
sure what it means unless somebody redefines it each time it is used.

Rod.
Scott
2024-03-11 09:29:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
Post by Scott
Post by Jeff Gaines
Can you receive STV (Scottish TV ???) without an aerial? Does it actually
stream live TV?
This is a good question. I thought all TV could be streamed live, but
I could be wrong about that. I know how to do it on BBC and Sky, I
have done it on another TV with Channel 4. Maybe I should try ITV X
instead and put in an English postcode?
Don't forget that for the major five channels, all these channel-bespoke
solutions seem set to disappear, and be replaced by a single common
https://www.techradar.com/streaming/what-is-freely-the-new-bbc-itv-and-channel-4-smart-tv-platform-explained
Thanks for that. One to watch. I see the guarantee does not cover
availability of future services.
SH
2024-03-11 21:11:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
Post by Scott
Post by Jeff Gaines
Can you receive STV (Scottish TV ???) without an aerial? Does it actually
stream live TV?
This is a good question. I thought all TV could be streamed live, but
I could be wrong about that. I know how to do it on BBC and Sky, I
have done it on another TV with Channel 4. Maybe I should try ITV X
instead and put in an English postcode?
Don't forget that for the major five channels, all these channel-bespoke
solutions seem set to disappear, and be replaced by a single common
https://www.techradar.com/streaming/what-is-freely-the-new-bbc-itv-and-channel-4-smart-tv-platform-explained
I'm a little confused... What does Freely give that BBC iPlayer, ITVHub,
4OD and Demand5 doesn't give?

i.e, we can already watch all these channels on iplayer, ITVHub, 4OD and
Demand5 without using Freely?
Scott
2024-03-11 21:20:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by SH
Post by Java Jive
Post by Scott
Post by Jeff Gaines
Can you receive STV (Scottish TV ???) without an aerial? Does it actually
stream live TV?
This is a good question. I thought all TV could be streamed live, but
I could be wrong about that. I know how to do it on BBC and Sky, I
have done it on another TV with Channel 4. Maybe I should try ITV X
instead and put in an English postcode?
Don't forget that for the major five channels, all these channel-bespoke
solutions seem set to disappear, and be replaced by a single common
https://www.techradar.com/streaming/what-is-freely-the-new-bbc-itv-and-channel-4-smart-tv-platform-explained
I'm a little confused... What does Freely give that BBC iPlayer, ITVHub,
4OD and Demand5 doesn't give?
i.e, we can already watch all these channels on iplayer, ITVHub, 4OD and
Demand5 without using Freely?
I'm confused too but at the moment I cannot get live TV on either ITVX
or C4 (but I can on BBC iPlayer and Sky News) even though an Android
TV - which mine is - is supposed to be supported.
Mark Undrill
2024-03-12 12:19:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
Post by SH
Post by Java Jive
Post by Scott
Post by Jeff Gaines
Can you receive STV (Scottish TV ???) without an aerial? Does it actually
stream live TV?
This is a good question. I thought all TV could be streamed live, but
I could be wrong about that. I know how to do it on BBC and Sky, I
have done it on another TV with Channel 4. Maybe I should try ITV X
instead and put in an English postcode?
Don't forget that for the major five channels, all these channel-bespoke
solutions seem set to disappear, and be replaced by a single common
https://www.techradar.com/streaming/what-is-freely-the-new-bbc-itv-and-channel-4-smart-tv-platform-explained
I'm a little confused... What does Freely give that BBC iPlayer, ITVHub,
4OD and Demand5 doesn't give?
i.e, we can already watch all these channels on iplayer, ITVHub, 4OD and
Demand5 without using Freely?
I'm confused too but at the moment I cannot get live TV on either ITVX
or C4 (but I can on BBC iPlayer and Sky News) even though an Android
TV - which mine is - is supposed to be supported.
On the ITVX client I have here you left arrow whicj brings up a menu.
Then down arrow to "Live TV" and select the channel you wish to view.
Scott
2024-03-12 17:44:31 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:19:53 +0000, Mark Undrill
Post by Mark Undrill
Post by Scott
Post by SH
Post by Java Jive
Post by Scott
Post by Jeff Gaines
Can you receive STV (Scottish TV ???) without an aerial? Does it actually
stream live TV?
This is a good question. I thought all TV could be streamed live, but
I could be wrong about that. I know how to do it on BBC and Sky, I
have done it on another TV with Channel 4. Maybe I should try ITV X
instead and put in an English postcode?
Don't forget that for the major five channels, all these channel-bespoke
solutions seem set to disappear, and be replaced by a single common
https://www.techradar.com/streaming/what-is-freely-the-new-bbc-itv-and-channel-4-smart-tv-platform-explained
I'm a little confused... What does Freely give that BBC iPlayer, ITVHub,
4OD and Demand5 doesn't give?
i.e, we can already watch all these channels on iplayer, ITVHub, 4OD and
Demand5 without using Freely?
I'm confused too but at the moment I cannot get live TV on either ITVX
or C4 (but I can on BBC iPlayer and Sky News) even though an Android
TV - which mine is - is supposed to be supported.
On the ITVX client I have here you left arrow whicj brings up a menu.
Then down arrow to "Live TV" and select the channel you wish to view.
Yes, that's right but the arrow is removed if it is not a 'supported'
device. There is stuff on the Internet about this.
Roderick Stewart
2024-03-12 09:27:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by SH
I'm a little confused... What does Freely give that BBC iPlayer, ITVHub,
4OD and Demand5 doesn't give?
Probably just the convenience of having them all in the same place for
people who don't want the complication of configuring them all
individually.

Unless I've misunderstood something, or they're also going to change
the law to cover this (which seems unlikely), then the "live" i.e.
timetabled broadcast streams included in this service would require a
TV licence, just the same as if you were watching them using a
receiver connected to an aerial.

If this is the case, then the website is misleading where it says that
it will enable watching TV via the internet "for free".

The only difference I can think of is that if people can be persuaded
to watch broadcasting streams via the internet, it will be technically
possible to monitor what they are watching, whereas with conventional
transmissions over the air, such a mechanism doesn't even exist.

I wonder why they'd want that?

Rod.
Tweed
2024-03-12 09:47:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roderick Stewart
Post by SH
I'm a little confused... What does Freely give that BBC iPlayer, ITVHub,
4OD and Demand5 doesn't give?
Probably just the convenience of having them all in the same place for
people who don't want the complication of configuring them all
individually.
Unless I've misunderstood something, or they're also going to change
the law to cover this (which seems unlikely), then the "live" i.e.
timetabled broadcast streams included in this service would require a
TV licence, just the same as if you were watching them using a
receiver connected to an aerial.
If this is the case, then the website is misleading where it says that
it will enable watching TV via the internet "for free".
The only difference I can think of is that if people can be persuaded
to watch broadcasting streams via the internet, it will be technically
possible to monitor what they are watching, whereas with conventional
transmissions over the air, such a mechanism doesn't even exist.
I wonder why they'd want that?
Rod.
Clearly free has to be taken not entirely at face value. Other than the
licence fee issue, you have to provide an Internet connection, electricity,
and the capital outlay for a TV, none of which come without cost.

What is not clear from the launch information is whether or not Freely
enabled PVRs will be a thing. Clearly you will be able to stream previously
aired programmes but I can almost guarantee you won’t be able to skip the
adverts without additional fees being payable. A PVR is really the only way
of making today’s advert infested programmes viewable.

A suspect Freely is seen by the commercial broadcasters as a way of cutting
down on advert skipping.
alan_m
2024-03-14 10:18:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roderick Stewart
The only difference I can think of is that if people can be persuaded
to watch broadcasting streams via the internet, it will be technically
possible to monitor what they are watching,
They would only be able to monitor what is being streamed - not that
people are watching it.
--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk
Bob Latham
2024-03-14 10:35:24 UTC
Permalink
.... it will be technically possible to monitor what they are
watching, whereas with conventional transmissions over the air,
such a mechanism doesn't even exist.
I wonder why they'd want that?
The much more important question is - who would want that information.

Bob.
Roderick Stewart
2024-03-14 12:55:36 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:35:24 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
Post by Bob Latham
.... it will be technically possible to monitor what they are
watching, whereas with conventional transmissions over the air,
such a mechanism doesn't even exist.
I wonder why they'd want that?
The much more important question is - who would want that information.
Bob.
Anyone with a motive to "prove" that you have been watching something
that requires you to have a licence.

I've heard some disturbing stories of the lengths the licence people
will go to, sending repeated threatening letters to the deceased for
example, even prosecuting someone with Downs syndrome who had no
control of her own finances. Apparently it's even possible to
prosecute people in their absence, which makes me wonder what is
presented by way of "evidence".

As BBC iPlayer seems to be installed by default on a lot of devices,
its presence doesn't actually prove anything, but you wouldn't know
what argument might be presented in court in your absence.

Rod.
Java Jive
2024-03-14 14:46:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roderick Stewart
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:35:24 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
Post by Bob Latham
.... it will be technically possible to monitor what they are
watching, whereas with conventional transmissions over the air,
such a mechanism doesn't even exist.
I wonder why they'd want that?
The much more important question is - who would want that information.
Anyone with a motive to "prove" that you have been watching something
that requires you to have a licence.
I've heard some disturbing stories of the lengths the licence people
will go to, sending repeated threatening letters to the deceased for
example, even prosecuting someone with Downs syndrome who had no
control of her own finances. Apparently it's even possible to
prosecute people in their absence, which makes me wonder what is
presented by way of "evidence".
Yes, I remember from periods when I didn't own a TV that they're very
good with the threatening letters etc, but, IIRC, that's an outside
sub-contractor debt-collector agency employed by the BBC, not the actual
BBC itself (BTW, that's not an unjustifiable attempt to excuse the BBC
from their ultimate responsibility for the methods of the people & firms
they employ, rather, I'm making a different point here). Similarly,
judging by the domains of the servers that iPlayer uses, those belong to
a different external sub-contractor who hosts their streaming services
for them. I suspect ...

- It would be neither easy nor legal under data protection laws for
the IPs of iPlayer users to find their way from one external agency
running the streaming service to a different external agency running the
licence-fee collection service.

- Even if they did, how would they make use of them? The only legal
way for the collection agency to find the holder of a particular IP at a
particular point in time would be get an injunction from a court
requesting this information from their ISP, an injunction which would
only be granted if it can be shown that the IP in question has been
involved in nefarious activity, but, for any given IP, that can't be
proven in advance without knowing which household was using the IP and
that the particular household didn't have a TV licence at the time, so
it's an insoluble chicken & egg situation for them - they can't get an
injunction without prior proof of wrongdoing, but they can't prove such
wrongdoing without an injunction.

- Even if they were to get around that somehow (but how?), the cost of
obtaining an injunction for every single IP that accesses iPlayer would
be many, many times any additional money won beyond the current system
of relying on the general public's honesty, so it wouldn't make any
economic sense for it to be attempted.
Post by Roderick Stewart
As BBC iPlayer seems to be installed by default on a lot of devices,
its presence doesn't actually prove anything, but you wouldn't know
what argument might be presented in court in your absence.
Given the above, how would they get hold of any device to prove the
existence of iPlayer on it anyway?

So put aside the paranoia, both of you.

A more possible scenario is that data on licence holders be made
available to the streaming services for them somehow to use to vet users
accessing the service, but they would have the same problem as above,
how to know which IPs belong to households with a licence? For users
accessing the service through the web interface, that's entirely
possible, because of the need to sign in, so potentially your
licence-fee details may have to be included in your user's profile,
otherwise access to iPlayer will be denied you. However, in most cases
they still wouldn't be able to prove that you are accessing the service
from that household or are using a mobile device belonging to a member
of that household, rather than using borrowed details as was widespread
with Netflix, at least until the recent clampdown.

Even then, programs like GetiPlayer and YouTubeDownload(Plus)
(youtube-dl, yt-dlp), which work partly by pretending to the server that
they are normal web-clients, may still be able to access content from
their respective sources, as proven by the fact that currently they
still work despite myriad changes to those sources in the past, even
though some of those changes probably having been designed specifically
to prevent such unauthorised use!
--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
Roderick Stewart
2024-03-15 09:08:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
The only legal
way for the collection agency to find the holder of a particular IP at a
particular point in time would be get an injunction from a court
requesting this information from their ISP, an injunction which would
only be granted if it can be shown that the IP in question has been
involved in nefarious activity, but, for any given IP, that can't be
proven in advance without knowing which household was using the IP and
that the particular household didn't have a TV licence at the time, so
it's an insoluble chicken & egg situation for them - they can't get an
injunction without prior proof of wrongdoing, but they can't prove such
wrongdoing without an injunction.
To oblige ISPs to provide this information routinely on demand would
only require a slight change in the law, which if anybody proposed it
would probably get through the system unopposed, because as usual
nobody would be paying attention because it's technical and they
couldn't understand it.

Look at some things that have already happened. Apparently we have a
law that enables the police to demand passwords on the threat of
prison, and only recently Scotland has criminalised words uttered in
your own home if they can be judged to be "hate crime", without a
clear definition of what this means, i.e. effectively the plods get to
make up the law as they go along.

The difference between the detection of TV viewing by internet
streaming and by radio broadcast is that the former includes a
mechanism that would only require a change in the law to invoke it,
whilst in the latter case the mechanism doesn't even exist. No law can
demand something that isn't physically possible (unless for example it
demands the complete replacement of all conventional cars with
electric ones, but that's another story, and physics will eventually
win anyway because it always does).

Rod.
Java Jive
2024-03-15 11:39:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roderick Stewart
Post by Java Jive
The only legal
way for the collection agency to find the holder of a particular IP at a
particular point in time would be get an injunction from a court
requesting this information from their ISP, an injunction which would
only be granted if it can be shown that the IP in question has been
involved in nefarious activity, but, for any given IP, that can't be
proven in advance without knowing which household was using the IP and
that the particular household didn't have a TV licence at the time, so
it's an insoluble chicken & egg situation for them - they can't get an
injunction without prior proof of wrongdoing, but they can't prove such
wrongdoing without an injunction.
To oblige ISPs to provide this information routinely on demand would
only require a slight change in the law, which if anybody proposed it
would probably get through the system unopposed, because as usual
nobody would be paying attention because it's technical and they
couldn't understand it.
It wouldn't be a slight change, it would be a considerable one which
freedom groups would immediately pick up on, because it would make
things like anonymous whistleblowing more difficult or even sometimes
personally dangerous.
Post by Roderick Stewart
Look at some things that have already happened. Apparently we have a
law that enables the police to demand passwords on the threat of
prison,
More overblown paranoia. Only if they have reasonable grounds as part
of an investigation, they can't just do it 'on spec':

https://adleygray.com/what-are-my-rights-when-the-police-ask-for-my-phone-password/

"The police have the power to request access to your device under the
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). This anti-terror
legislation has been broadened over the years and allows police to serve
a notice under Section 49 of the act, requiring suspects to disclose
passwords or codes to their devices.
Grounds for a Section 49 Notice

A Section 49 notice can be issued if the following circumstances apply:

The password is in the suspect’s possession
Disclosure is necessary for preventing or detecting crime
Disclosure is proportional to the investigation
The protected material cannot be obtained by other means

Do You Have to Comply with a RIPA Notice?

The answer is no, but failing to comply with a police request can result
in a prosecution. Section 53 of RIPA makes it a criminal offence to not
comply with a Section 49 notice, carrying a sentence of up to two years
in prison, and up to five years in cases involving national security or
child indecency."
Post by Roderick Stewart
and only recently Scotland has criminalised words uttered in
your own home if they can be judged to be "hate crime", without a
clear definition of what this means, i.e. effectively the plods get to
make up the law as they go along.
Not really true as stated, the word 'home' doesn't even occur in the
following article, so again, paranoia. The new law coming into effect
on April 1st is indeed somewhat controversial, but that is just because
it is Scotland's attempt to handle a subject that is inherently
controversial, as it needs to find the middle ground between two
conflicting forces: personal freedom & how exercise of personal freedom
adversely affects other people. Further, the article ends ...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68570614

"The UK government is grappling with similar issues as it discusses
violence, hatred and intolerance in its attempt to define extremism.

[1 paragraph more]"

... so the wider UK and in fact many other nations are struggling with
the same dilemma:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country
Post by Roderick Stewart
The difference between the detection of TV viewing by internet
streaming and by radio broadcast is that the former includes a
mechanism that would only require a change in the law to invoke it,
whilst in the latter case the mechanism doesn't even exist. No law can
demand something that isn't physically possible (unless for example it
demands the complete replacement of all conventional cars with
electric ones, but that's another story, and physics will eventually
win anyway because it always does).
But you're still being paranoid about it. It's gone the 11th March now,
and, as warned by the BBC, the download button is now disabled on the
iPlayer website, at least to me browsing from a laptop, but, as
predicted by myself and others, GetIPlayer is still working. If 'they'
were really headed down this repressive path characteristic of Putin's
Russia, don't you think that would have been among the first things
'they' would have tried to kill off? After all, it enables anybody to
download independent news.
--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
Bob Latham
2024-03-15 10:43:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roderick Stewart
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:35:24 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
Post by Bob Latham
.... it will be technically possible to monitor what they are
watching, whereas with conventional transmissions over the air,
such a mechanism doesn't even exist.
I wonder why they'd want that?
The much more important question is - who would want that
information.
Anyone with a motive to "prove" that you have been watching
something that requires you to have a licence.
That's not an issue for me. The law is what the law is, people know
the telly tax is becoming ever more absurd as time goes on, it will
end itself - eventually. Besides, if we go online then direct
subscription payments per view may be more practical and certainly
fairer.

No, what bothers me is data gathering by the thought police in one
guise or another. Unfortunately, we live in a world where unhinged
people see themselves as virtuous but shutting down their political
opponents by dirty means whilst claiming it's for the greater good.

You only have to look across the pond where the Democrats have
weaponised the entire justice system and changed the whole meaning of
the word "moral". It no longer refers to what you do, it now means -
why you do it, so any vile, corrupt, dishonest act done against Trump
is now seen as moral and is for the greater good.

I see a time when people who watch items deemed "wrong think" will be
easily identified for the thought police to deal with.

That's what bothers me.

Bob.
Java Jive
2024-03-15 14:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Latham
You only have to look across the pond where the Democrats have
weaponised the entire justice system and changed the whole meaning of
the word "moral". It no longer refers to what you do, it now means -
why you do it, so any vile, corrupt, dishonest act done against Trump
is now seen as moral and is for the greater good.
More nonsense from the sewer that was called Shitter (and should still
be) as usual calling black 'white' and white 'black', ie the complete
reverse of the actual truth. The Trump incited insurrection on Jan 6
was a clear attempt at Putinising the American democratic system, he has
clearly broken the law in multiple further ways, and has even said
publicly that if elected he intends to become a dictator (though
afterwards he backtracked that to "for a day") and will revenge himself
on all those who have taken him to court. Wasn't his disastrous
*actual* presidency enough evidence for you? It was for many Americans,
a recent poll of who had been the best and worst presidents in US
history placed him bottom. Currently he faces or has lost more than 91
charges, with potentially more from his attempts to overturn the 2020
election in more states in the pipeline.

To start with the two civil cases he's already lost, he owes tens of
millions in *punitive* fines for slandering a *second* time a woman he
raped, E. Jean Carroll, but has just slandered her again, leading to the
possibility of him being sued by her a third time, which, if happens, he
will certainly lose, and the fines may then be ratcheted up another
order of magnitude in an effort to teach him the wisdom of putting his
brain in gear before operating his mouth. More seriously, for him but
of course not for the rape victim, he also owes hundreds of millions in
fines for falsifying his business records for tax purposes, money which
all the signs indicate that he doesn't have in readily realisable cash,
and will have to start selling significant assets to pay it 'when' -
according to seemingly most US legal experts - not 'if' he loses his
attempted appeal. Meanwhile the running of his businesses are being
overseen by a caretaker official.

But he still faces 91 charges in four separate *criminal* cases still to
come to court. Potentially, he has to be found guilty on only *one* of
these 91 charges to end up in jail. The only real question is not his
guilt, but whether the lumbering US justice system can get him convicted
before the election against a barrage from his lawyers' of delaying
tactics by raising the most absurd & ridiculous appeals, most of which
most courts if they were trying anyone else would feel able to just
dismiss out of hand.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61084161

But, if all the above wasn't enough to convince a rational person that
he's a danger to US democracy and thereby to the democracy of its
allies, you should consider some other points ...

The idolatrous Republican party is now completely in the hands of their
Orange Juju, literally, in that their national convention is now
completely controlled by members of his own family, and they are laying
off people, around 60 at the most recent count, to leave more money for
paying his legal fees and fines from his lost court cases. So all the
money that well-meaning people in the past have contributed to achieve a
political effect is instead being syphoned off for something else entirely.

Republicans are engaged in a nationwide campaign of attempting to ensure
a continuous House majority by redrawing electoral boundaries in the
states that they control to reduce the number of democratic
Representatives that they elect. They have already attempted and lost a
number of cases in this endeavour.

They are also trying to tighten up state voting laws in such various
ways as to disadvantage the sort of people in society who are more
likely to vote Democrat. To give just one example, currently most
states allow postal ballots to be counted as long they are postmarked on
or before election day, but some Republican-controlled states are trying
to alter the rules in their state so that ballots have actually to
arrive before election day; superficially this seems reasonable, but the
trouble with it is that it opens the possibility for votes from Democrat
areas to be deliberately delayed by bad actors in the postal system so
that they will not be counted.

Then there are the wide ranging consequences of overturning Roe v Wade.
As embryos of any age are now considered people, this is affecting not
just abortion but IVF and potentially even contraceptive rights. Those
in the US of reproductive age, particularly of course women, stand to
lose significant reproductive rights and control over their own bodies.

But nowhere is the shambolic state to which Trump & his MAGA high
priests have reduced the Republican party more noticeable than in
Congress. As you are always raging against Putin and condemning
everyone who argues against you as being rabidly left-wing (when of
course the real truth is that it is you who is rabidly right-wing), I
presume that, like most people in Western democracies, you want Ukraine
to win its war of freedom against Russian oppression? So, given the
ineffectual & unfunny clown show to which Republicans have reduced the
House of Representatives, so that it is unable to pass almost any
legislation because they want to fuck any chance of Biden passing any
such in the last year of his term to, as they think, increase their own
chances of winning the forthcoming election by pointing the public to
the chaos that they themselves are causing and blaming Biden for it, how
can you justify Trump's stated aim of preventing any aid to Ukraine
passing through the House, and his stated aim of not giving any aid to
Ukraine if he is elected? Even long-standing GOP Representatives -
mostly those who are so who are so pissed off at the current state of
obeyance to the Orange Juju that they are not seeking re-election anyway
- are considering resigning early in order to reduce the GOP majority
and possibly even hand it back to the Democrats, so that normal
government can resume. One went yesterday, there are rumours of a few
more, and I think only 4 or 5 in total are needed to overturn the
Republican majority, and then maybe the House can resume its normal
business of government that they were elected to do, including passing
the Senate bill to give desperately needed aid to Ukraine.

Etc, etc. When Trump even says openly that he intends to be a dictator,
FFS, BELIEVE HIM!

[
Provenance for the above can be found mostly in most decent mainstream
news sources, naturally particularly US ones.

Some further interesting details come out of a number of YouTube videos
by Brian Taylor Cohen, so a word or two about him. He is quite
obviously very anti-Trump, but his solo rants on that subject are not
the videos I would point you to, but others where he discusses various
legal and political points with experts, whom he lets speak largely
uninterrupted:

+ Those subtitled The Legal Breakdown with Glenn Kirschner

+ Those subtitled Democracy Watch with Marc Elias

+ Those subtitled Inside The Right with Tim Miller

https://www.youtube.com/@briantylercohen/videos

Further interesting videos come out of the Meidas Touch, particularly
those that cover in depth the legal issues raised by the Trump cases:

https://www.youtube.com/@MeidasTouch
]
--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
Bob Latham
2024-03-15 18:57:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
More nonsense from the sewer that was called Shitter (and should
still be) as usual calling black 'white' and white 'black', ie the
Can't be arsed to argue with lefties and their 6th form naive
politics or put up with their name calling again from school age.

But thank for the attack, it confirms I'm on the right lines.

Bob.
Spike
2024-03-15 19:28:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Latham
Post by Java Jive
More nonsense from the sewer that was called Shitter (and should
still be) as usual calling black 'white' and white 'black', ie the
Can't be arsed to argue with lefties and their 6th form naive
politics or put up with their name calling again from school age.
But thank for the attack, it confirms I'm on the right lines.
Bob.
Don’t knock it…you got a thousand word essay in response. A deranged essay,
but think of the effort that was wasted putting it together.
--
Spike
Java Jive
2024-03-15 19:42:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spike
Post by Bob Latham
Post by Java Jive
More nonsense from the sewer that was called Shitter (and should
still be) as usual calling black 'white' and white 'black', ie the
Can't be arsed to argue with lefties and their 6th form naive
politics or put up with their name calling again from school age.
But thank for the attack, it confirms I'm on the right lines.
So yet again you are proven to have no answer to actual facts when they
are presented to you. No change there then.
Post by Spike
Don’t knock it…you got a thousand word essay in response. A deranged essay,
but think of the effort that was wasted putting it together.
It's not wasted effort, because anyone coming along later has the option
of reading it if they so choose, and thereby finding out more about the
issues in question. I can't force idioticly hopeless obeisant disciples
like you & Bob out of the shitty rabbit-holes of quasi-religious fake
news that you dig for yourselves, but the option is there for others who
may have a few brain cells about them and may wish to avoid a similarly
ignominious fate.
--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
Bob Latham
2024-03-15 19:59:26 UTC
Permalink
Don‘t knock itŒyou got a thousand word essay in response. A
deranged essay, but think of the effort that was wasted putting it
together.
Indeed a wonderful thought. Made me chuckle, thanks for that.

Bob.
Jim Lesurf
2024-03-16 10:30:03 UTC
Permalink
No, what bothers me is data gathering by the thought police in one guise
or another. Unfortunately, we live in a world where unhinged people see
themselves as virtuous but shutting down their political opponents by
dirty means whilst claiming it's for the greater good.
I'm concerned about the 'big tech' companies and the ultra-wealthy doing
this via their 'commerical' apps, devices, software, etc. Can't say it
would concern me for the UK Gov to know I watch the BBC.

Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Spike
2024-03-16 11:01:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Lesurf
No, what bothers me is data gathering by the thought police in one guise
or another. Unfortunately, we live in a world where unhinged people see
themselves as virtuous but shutting down their political opponents by
dirty means whilst claiming it's for the greater good.
I'm concerned about the 'big tech' companies and the ultra-wealthy doing
this via their 'commerical' apps, devices, software, etc. Can't say it
would concern me for the UK Gov to know I watch the BBC.
Keeping in mind that “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the
most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him”, any
detective constable worth his salt would use your BBC-watching against you.
--
Spike
Bob Latham
2024-03-16 12:15:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Lesurf
Post by Bob Latham
No, what bothers me is data gathering by the thought police in
one guise or another. Unfortunately, we live in a world where
unhinged people see themselves as virtuous but shutting down
their political opponents by dirty means whilst claiming it's
for the greater good.
I'm concerned about the 'big tech' companies and the
ultra-wealthy doing this via their 'commerical' apps, devices,
software, etc. Can't say it would concern me for the UK Gov to
know I watch the BBC.
Keeping in mind that ”If you give me six lines written by the hand
of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will
hang him•, any detective constable worth his salt would use your
BBC-watching against you.
I'm sure people would be quite safe watching the propaganda channels
put out by the elite so BBC, Sky, C4 no issues for certain. What
about GB news (or others), that trigger the offcom-munists on a
regular basis who like to make sure that the media stay well left of
centre or else. Interesting indeed to see where all of those people
came from, no prizes for guessing.

Remember, we now live in a state where one woman standing alone in
silent prayer (no banners, no placards) opposite an abortion clinic
can be arrested but a whole hoard of muslims in full, on their knees
prayer in the street is perfectly fine. Or a guy alone carries a
placard saying that Hamas are terrorists gets forced to the ground
and arrested. Again, this while Hamas and terrorist supporters can
climb over and deface monuments and call for (from the river to the
sea) genocide of the jews - all fine.

The days when the boys in blue could be relied upon to uphold the law
equally for all are long gone, they've clearly taken a side. I never
thought Britain could sink this low but it has. That's why snooping
is now a worry, you cannot predict how much worse things are going to
get.

The Tories have been truly awful but in the summer we get a Labour
government - God help us. This isn't a Labour concerned with working
people and the poor getting a fair crack, oh no. All Labour are
concerned with now are their luxury belief ideologies. Logic, reason,
common sense all gone. An emperor's new clothes world where anyone
with half a brain can see the insanity but you cannot speak against
the ideologies.

Britain is done, we stand at the gates of hell and there's no way
back.


Bob.
Jeff Gaines
2024-03-16 13:24:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Latham
Remember, we now live in a state where one woman standing alone in
silent prayer (no banners, no placards) opposite an abortion clinic
can be arrested but a whole hoard of muslims in full, on their knees
prayer in the street is perfectly fine.
The same state was up in arms when the Palestinian flag was raised at a
football match (in Scotland) and at a junior league match - where
apparently one Israeli family complained so the match was abandoned.

Frankly knowing who our government treats as the goodies and who the
baddies is impossible to tell.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
I take full responsibility for what happened - that is why the person that
was responsible went immediately.
(Gordon Brown, April 2009)
Jim Lesurf
2024-03-16 17:08:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Gaines
Post by Bob Latham
Remember, we now live in a state where one woman standing alone in
silent prayer (no banners, no placards) opposite an abortion clinic can
be arrested but a whole hoard of muslims in full, on their knees prayer
in the street is perfectly fine.
The same state was up in arms when the Palestinian flag was raised at a
football match (in Scotland) and at a junior league match - where
apparently one Israeli family complained so the match was abandoned.
Frankly knowing who our government treats as the goodies and who the
baddies is impossible to tell.
My impression is that our current 'government' (sic) judge by the pound
(sterling) donated.

Odd, though, to regard people praying as something that *must* be 'bad'.
That said, I'd suspect that many who seek an abortion are already in
sensitive state of mind. So may need treating with some tact and care.
Including a context which may be omitted by reports... and usenet rants or
whines.

Beyond, that wrt 'faith systems', etc, maybe just another case of people
not being able (or willing) to distinguish between issues like 'anti
semitism' and 'anti zionism', etc. In reality circumstances affect cases.

I'd usually say "devil in the (omitted) details' but perhaps not the ideal
way to put it in the above context. Perhaps some level of "two point paper"
reporting might be a better way to indicate that... Can't tell from such
brief - cherry-picked - assertions by Bob.

Surprised that you'd need a Panny 24-inch TV to know about it, though. :-)

Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Jim Lesurf
2024-03-16 17:08:06 UTC
Permalink
I'm sure people would be quite safe watching the propaganda channels put
out by the elite so BBC, Sky, C4 no issues for certain. What about GB
news (or others), that trigger the offcom-munists on a regular basis who
like to make sure that the media stay well left of centre or else.
Interesting indeed to see where all of those people came from, no prizes
for guessing.
Get back to me on that when you've shown you can understand why your '2
point paper' was dribble. Or even dare to read a book I suggested. :-)

Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
2024-03-18 11:41:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Latham
Post by Jim Lesurf
Post by Bob Latham
No, what bothers me is data gathering by the thought police in
one guise or another. Unfortunately, we live in a world where
unhinged people see themselves as virtuous but shutting down
their political opponents by dirty means whilst claiming it's
for the greater good.
I'm concerned about the 'big tech' companies and the
ultra-wealthy doing this via their 'commerical' apps, devices,
software, etc. Can't say it would concern me for the UK Gov to
know I watch the BBC.
Keeping in mind that ”If you give me six lines written by the hand
of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will
hang him•, any detective constable worth his salt would use your
BBC-watching against you.
I'm sure people would be quite safe watching the propaganda channels
put out by the elite so BBC, Sky, C4 no issues for certain. What
about GB news (or others), that trigger the offcom-munists on a
regular basis who like to make sure that the media stay well left of
centre or else. Interesting indeed to see where all of those people
came from, no prizes for guessing.
Remember, we now live in a state where one woman standing alone in
silent prayer (no banners, no placards) opposite an abortion clinic
can be arrested but a whole hoard of muslims in full, on their knees
prayer in the street is perfectly fine. Or a guy alone carries a
placard saying that Hamas are terrorists gets forced to the ground
and arrested. Again, this while Hamas and terrorist supporters can
climb over and deface monuments and call for (from the river to the
sea) genocide of the jews - all fine.
The days when the boys in blue could be relied upon to uphold the law
equally for all are long gone, they've clearly taken a side. I never
thought Britain could sink this low but it has. That's why snooping
is now a worry, you cannot predict how much worse things are going to
get.
The Tories have been truly awful but in the summer we get a Labour
government - God help us. This isn't a Labour concerned with working
people and the poor getting a fair crack, oh no. All Labour are
concerned with now are their luxury belief ideologies. Logic, reason,
common sense all gone. An emperor's new clothes world where anyone
with half a brain can see the insanity but you cannot speak against
the ideologies.
Britain is done, we stand at the gates of hell and there's no way
back.
If you don't like British values, why don't you leave?
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
2024-03-18 11:41:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Latham
Post by Jim Lesurf
Post by Bob Latham
No, what bothers me is data gathering by the thought police in
one guise or another. Unfortunately, we live in a world where
unhinged people see themselves as virtuous but shutting down
their political opponents by dirty means whilst claiming it's
for the greater good.
I'm concerned about the 'big tech' companies and the
ultra-wealthy doing this via their 'commerical' apps, devices,
software, etc. Can't say it would concern me for the UK Gov to
know I watch the BBC.
Keeping in mind that ”If you give me six lines written by the hand
of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will
hang him•, any detective constable worth his salt would use your
BBC-watching against you.
I'm sure people would be quite safe watching the propaganda channels
put out by the elite so BBC, Sky, C4 no issues for certain. What
about GB news (or others), that trigger the offcom-munists on a
regular basis who like to make sure that the media stay well left of
centre or else. Interesting indeed to see where all of those people
came from, no prizes for guessing.
Remember, we now live in a state where one woman standing alone in
silent prayer (no banners, no placards) opposite an abortion clinic
can be arrested but a whole hoard of muslims in full, on their knees
prayer in the street is perfectly fine. Or a guy alone carries a
placard saying that Hamas are terrorists gets forced to the ground
and arrested. Again, this while Hamas and terrorist supporters can
climb over and deface monuments and call for (from the river to the
sea) genocide of the jews - all fine.
The days when the boys in blue could be relied upon to uphold the law
equally for all are long gone, they've clearly taken a side. I never
thought Britain could sink this low but it has. That's why snooping
is now a worry, you cannot predict how much worse things are going to
get.
The Tories have been truly awful but in the summer we get a Labour
government - God help us. This isn't a Labour concerned with working
people and the poor getting a fair crack, oh no. All Labour are
concerned with now are their luxury belief ideologies. Logic, reason,
common sense all gone. An emperor's new clothes world where anyone
with half a brain can see the insanity but you cannot speak against
the ideologies.
Britain is done, we stand at the gates of hell and there's no way
back.
If you don't like British values, why don't you leave?
Bob Latham
2024-03-18 12:27:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rupert Moss-Eccardt
If you don't like British values, why don't you leave?
Which British values, the logical sensible ones I grew up with or the
insane ideology driven nonsense being thrust upon people now?


Bob.

JMB99
2024-03-16 14:51:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spike
Keeping in mind that “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the
most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him”, any
detective constable worth his salt would use your BBC-watching against you.
I am just waiting for a court to demand the full viewing habits from one
of the big American streaming companies to prove something.
Jim Lesurf
2024-03-16 17:08:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Lesurf
I'm concerned about the 'big tech' companies and the ultra-wealthy
doing this via their 'commerical' apps, devices, software, etc. Can't
say it would concern me for the UK Gov to know I watch the BBC.
Keeping in mind that "If you give me six lines written by the hand of
the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang
him", any detective constable worth his salt would use your BBC-watching
against you.
To which, apply what I said above. :-)

Then add in the deep-fakery which is now becoming common via big-tech
non-UK platforms like twerper, etc.

Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Spike
2024-03-17 10:11:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Lesurf
Post by Jim Lesurf
I'm concerned about the 'big tech' companies and the ultra-wealthy
doing this via their 'commerical' apps, devices, software, etc. Can't
say it would concern me for the UK Gov to know I watch the BBC.
Keeping in mind that "If you give me six lines written by the hand of
the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang
him", any detective constable worth his salt would use your BBC-watching
against you.
To which, apply what I said above. :-)
Then add in the deep-fakery which is now becoming common via big-tech
non-UK platforms like twerper, etc.
Jim
Oh, quite so. Perhaps one way to judge what one sees, reads, or hears, is
to apply the ‘cui bono’ test to the reporting in question.
--
Spike
Jim Lesurf
2024-03-18 10:45:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spike
Post by Jim Lesurf
To which, apply what I said above. :-)
Then add in the deep-fakery which is now becoming common via big-tech
non-UK platforms like twerper, etc.
Jim
Oh, quite so. Perhaps one way to judge what one sees, reads, or hears,
is to apply the 'cui bono' test to the reporting in question.
Given the rise in the weathy, etc, using 'Artificial Intellegence' to
replace mere people I have begun to wonder if we should tax the use of AI
on the basis that otherwise they'd have paid someone to do the work, and
that payment would attract tax. Thus the 'pro' use of AI loses both
emplyoment and tax which could benefit those who might need it to aid their
ability to work. (e.g. pay for education and health and make people more
able to work than if this isn't provided.)

Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
the dog from that film you saw
2024-03-12 17:18:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by SH
I'm a little confused... What does Freely give that BBC iPlayer, ITVHub,
4OD and Demand5 doesn't give?
i.e, we can already watch all these channels on iplayer, ITVHub, 4OD and
Demand5 without using Freely?
i believe its another way of delivering existing channels. currently
when you setup your tv you choose arial, sattelite or cable, there
should be a fourth choice, internet.
Scott
2024-03-12 17:46:45 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:18:11 +0000, the dog from that film you saw
Post by the dog from that film you saw
Post by SH
I'm a little confused... What does Freely give that BBC iPlayer, ITVHub,
4OD and Demand5 doesn't give?
i.e, we can already watch all these channels on iplayer, ITVHub, 4OD and
Demand5 without using Freely?
i believe its another way of delivering existing channels. currently
when you setup your tv you choose arial, sattelite or cable, there
should be a fourth choice, internet.
This was my belief also until I tried to accomplish it. It needs to be
a 'supported device' but the definition of supported is opaque.
Jeff Layman
2024-03-09 15:00:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Gaines
Post by Scott
Post by Jeff Gaines
Post by Scott
What settings did it forget? Also, I don't have an aerial at the
moment. I wanted to see if I could run it via Wi-Fi instead, but I
keep getting a message to retune the channels. Can I avoid this or is
is better to install an aerial?
I am streaming most things now, can you be sure from the settings that it
is definitely connected to your home network by WiFi or network cable?
Yes - it shows connected and displays Sky News and BBC iPlayer without
difficulty. I could not get Channel 4 News live and I am still having
problems with STV. All the time it asks me to scan channels. I have
tried this but of course no channels are found and the message
returns. Feeding in a coaxial cable would be a challenge.
I've just looked at the manual, you need a degree nowadays!
I had a look and there wasn't any mention in the sound setup of
adjusting bass and treble to your liking.
Post by Jeff Gaines
Can you receive STV (Scottish TV ???) without an aerial? Does it actually
stream live TV?
My Freeview Panasonic has a streaming app for STV which has been there
for 4 years. I tried it several years ago (when registration wasn't
required) and it worked well.
--
Jeff
alan_m
2024-03-09 14:35:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
Post by Jeff Gaines
Post by Scott
What settings did it forget? Also, I don't have an aerial at the
moment. I wanted to see if I could run it via Wi-Fi instead, but I
keep getting a message to retune the channels. Can I avoid this or is
is better to install an aerial?
I am streaming most things now, can you be sure from the settings that it
is definitely connected to your home network by WiFi or network cable?
Yes - it shows connected and displays Sky News and BBC iPlayer without
difficulty. I could not get Channel 4 News live and I am still having
problems with STV. All the time it asks me to scan channels. I have
tried this but of course no channels are found and the message
returns. Feeding in a coaxial cable would be a challenge.
What about making the equivalent of a (crap) set-top aerial and just
scanning. Maybe a length of single wire connected to the centre of the
connector will do. Possibly a single channel scanned and stored may make
the message disappear.
--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk
Scott
2024-03-09 14:42:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by alan_m
Post by Scott
Post by Jeff Gaines
Post by Scott
What settings did it forget? Also, I don't have an aerial at the
moment. I wanted to see if I could run it via Wi-Fi instead, but I
keep getting a message to retune the channels. Can I avoid this or is
is better to install an aerial?
I am streaming most things now, can you be sure from the settings that it
is definitely connected to your home network by WiFi or network cable?
Yes - it shows connected and displays Sky News and BBC iPlayer without
difficulty. I could not get Channel 4 News live and I am still having
problems with STV. All the time it asks me to scan channels. I have
tried this but of course no channels are found and the message
returns. Feeding in a coaxial cable would be a challenge.
What about making the equivalent of a (crap) set-top aerial and just
scanning. Maybe a length of single wire connected to the centre of the
connector will do. Possibly a single channel scanned and stored may make
the message disappear.
I thought about that - also whether an indoor aerial would work. (I
know you need a digital aerial not an analogue aerial and it will cost
three times as much -:)
alan_m
2024-03-09 15:28:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
I thought about that - also whether an indoor aerial would work. (I
know you need a digital aerial not an analogue aerial and it will cost
three times as much -:)
There is no such thing as a digital aerial.

The same aerials that worked for analogue TV work with digital TV. There
is no difference in cost unless you fall for the marketing Bull Shit.

What did, or may have, changed between analogue and digital is the
channel frequencies the broadcasters use so, say, a band A aerial may no
longer cover the range of frequencies that are now broadcast in your area.

What tended to happen is that wideband aerials were sold under the term
"digital aerials". In general, these were no different from wideband
aerials sold for analogue TV.

What is now starting to be sold is wideband aerials that do not cover
the frequencies now allocated for the phone network (4G and 5G). These
aerials may also be known as band K aerials.

You should be able to pick up a log periodic band K aerial for under a
tenner or something from a company like blake for £17 to £30.


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk
Java Jive
2024-03-09 16:22:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by alan_m
Post by Scott
I thought about that - also whether an indoor aerial would work. (I
know you need a digital aerial not an analogue aerial and it will cost
three times as much -:)
There is no such thing as a digital aerial.
[snip]
Whoosh! Someone didn't spot the smiley!
--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
charles
2024-03-09 16:30:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
Post by alan_m
Post by Scott
Post by Jeff Gaines
Post by Scott
What settings did it forget? Also, I don't have an aerial at the
moment. I wanted to see if I could run it via Wi-Fi instead, but I
keep getting a message to retune the channels. Can I avoid this or is
is better to install an aerial?
I am streaming most things now, can you be sure from the settings that it
is definitely connected to your home network by WiFi or network cable?
Yes - it shows connected and displays Sky News and BBC iPlayer without
difficulty. I could not get Channel 4 News live and I am still having
problems with STV. All the time it asks me to scan channels. I have
tried this but of course no channels are found and the message
returns. Feeding in a coaxial cable would be a challenge.
What about making the equivalent of a (crap) set-top aerial and just
scanning. Maybe a length of single wire connected to the centre of the
connector will do. Possibly a single channel scanned and stored may make
the message disappear.
I thought about that - also whether an indoor aerial would work. (I
know you need a digital aerial not an analogue aerial and it will cost
three times as much -:)
There's no such thing as a digital aerial. The only difference is you might
need it to cover different channels than before.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Loading...