h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Not /quite/ true. If you install a TV card, or any other means to receive TV pictures on your computer in the United Kingdom, as the last version of the TV Licensing agreement that I read, stated, you have to have TV licence -- But if you just have a PC that does not receive TV pictures, you are fine(and fine-free!) to live without one"

Then maybe I have that wrong. I’ll have to do some more research on that matter, so if that’s the case then why is it if you have a black and white tv, but also have cable or/and video/dvd you need a colour TV license?

It seems we have one set of people here who say Telewest knows and doesn't care and another who say they don't and would change it if they knew. Wouldn't just telling them satisfy both sides? Then we could get on with more important things like writing non sequitors.

cl:

"if Telewest is aware of the *hack* or *loophole* or whatever you want to call it, why are we having this conversation?"

Anybody who's ever had dealings with Telewest would know they're notorious for seeming to be run by a Pointy-Haired-Boss character from Dilbert.

Increase:

"in post 60, you say:

"I believe Blueyonder sets aside a few IPs for its Telewest digibox users""

Yes - I remember there was a debate to get some users of the LD site banned permanently, as opposed to banning by their login name, but it could not be done, because some Telewest boxes had the same IP. This might just be a not-so-foolproof lookup of IPs failing to look past a Proxy server, but it might not.

They still do not have an ISP as such, though. For that implies that they have signed up to an Internet Service package, to which such providers of that package have agreed a contract, enabling the user to have access to the Internet via the providers, along with some terms and conditions. The terms and conditions of Telewest Digital TV do not cover Internet Service provision.

You might find that the 'certain extent' that a digibox user can be traced, is to the extent of being able to recognise that the IP belongs to Telewest/Blueyonder. You might find the UBR number and the hub (kno is the Knowsley hub, for instance) when you do a reverse DNS lookup, but tracing to a street and house number is virtually impossible -- Unless of course Telewest are not lazy, and keep a log of which STB ID# and Smartcard ID# is using which IP address.

I doubt they take this step, myself. Not many official ISPs do, either.

How many court case are lost/won because of some kind of loophole, when a loophole is found and if you want to use the term *used illegally* then its up to the powers that be to close that loophole if possible and if they so wish to do so. As telewest haven’t closed it down although they know about the loophole then it isn’t actually illegal to use the email link.

"So if that?s the case then why is it if you have a black and white tv, but also have cable or/and video/dvd you need a colour TV license?"

The last time I checked, you could get off a hefty colour licence fee by using a black and white TV instead, and settling with the cheaper B/W licence.

Well, these time's they are-a changin'...

You should take that question up somewhere else, perhaps <./>AskH2G2</.>.

cl, Telewest WILL sort it out if they realise how much a problem it is/can be, and how easily it can be sorted out. I have it down to one line of code in the e-mail script, or one line of code in a server config file, myself.

The TV licence for computers will only be if your computer is in a state to receive TV pictures- the same rule as with televisions, which I brought up earlier.

As for needing a colour licence for a black and white Tv and video, i don't know. I do know the TV licensing board last year sent me increasingly threatening letters, telling me to get a TV licence that instant or they'd come and prosecute me, which started four months into my twelve month licence, so it's possible that the colourb&w argument is just another examp[le of the TV licensing authority not knowing their arse from their elbow.

cl zoomer -has Spring sprung?
It seems we have one set of people here who say Telewest knows and doesn't care and another who say they don't and would change it if they knew. Wouldn't just telling them satisfy both sides? Then we could get on with more important things like writing non sequitors."

i don’t care either way, I’m just stating that t/west do know, and yet still allow set top boxes to use this email link,
the person that wants to inform t/west of this loophole in there system doesn’t seem to be aware that they already know, (why wouldn’t they know?) but it seems that she/he is only doing it for one reason, and that’s because they have problems with t/west users,
so ok I’m on blue yonder yeah?
so if i come along and cause trouble should all users who’s internet providers are t/west blue yonder be banned? if my isp was BT, and i caused trouble should all Bt customers be banned?

Egon. TV licenses isn’t really the issue here and I only mentioned because some on(I think some one called 2legs) had mentioned it as an analogy regarding how silly it was to have digi box users banned,
So I think from now it would be best to leave the topic of TV license out of this debate for now on concentrate on the original topic of why and how digi box users should be banned and branded as trouble makers. And what telewest intend to do regarding this loophole within there interactive services.

Sorry, those terms and names are literally foreign to me. Is Blue Yonder the internet service provider for Telewest? I assume that BT is British Telephone?

I get the idea of what you mean, though. I don't think anyone is out to ban anyone, are they? I thought this was just about the *magic email* thingy people are doing. Sorry to be a bit thick but this is a little confusing for a foreigner.

aka (post 79): "h2g2 is a free site provided by BBCi. As I understand it, h2g2 receives no funding from the TV licence fee at all,"

h2g2 is part of BBCi. BBCi is run by the BBC. The BBC is a non-profit organisation funded by its right to collect TV licence fees.

There *are* commercial services run by the BBC - or rather by "BBC Worldwide Ltd" - they have adverts and everything. BBCi is not part of BBC Worldwide. It is TV Licence funded.

Not that that has anything to do with who should access it, except in affirming that it is legally protected as a "public service". I just wanted to stop misinformation from spreading.

sorry, i wasn’t thinking, for those who are not from uk blue yonder is a internet service provided by telewset. and your correct BT is British telecom.

if you try to ban the use of the "magic email" you automatically ban digibox users from accessing h2g2 via there set top box so yeah it is about banning digibox users.

zyrak- fine by me, my posts regarding the TV licence have merely been in response to posts which appear confused by what precisely it funds or how exactly it works. Merely trying to aid people's understanding.

The telewest issue- I couldn't really give a rat's ass. Interesting stuff to read, I just can't get worked up about it.

zyrak, sorry again for being a bit slow but wasn't that covered as well? Do digibox users have absolutely no access to computers like the library and internet cafe ones that were talked about?

Egon, I find it fascinating that your rodents in Britain can own perissodactyl mammals!

aka (post 83):
"They still do not have an ISP as such, though."
"Unless of course Telewest are not lazy, and keep a log of which STB ID# and Smartcard ID# is using which IP address."

What exactly is your point? Yes, they are hard to trace, as are many other Internet users. Yes, the agreement they have entered into probably doesn't explicitly cover "Internet access" in its general form. But what does that, in the end, have to do with anything?

If the BBC wanted to try and ban a user from setting up new accounts, they would not be able to do so if that customer did not have a static IP - as already stated, this will be true for many many categories of user. Permanent IP blocking is an extreme measure, sometimes used as an aid in efforts against a particularly persistent abuser of an Internet service.

If the BBC wanted to go further, and claim that a particular abuser should be denied *Internet access*, they would need to find out who was granting that user access (easy, look up the IP address), and then contact that provider. It would then be completely up to that provider how they dealt with it, and how they went about matching time of access and IP to information in their user database. Telewest may or may not have easily accessed records of this, and they may or may not decide to take action in a particular case.

But it would be a *very* extreme case of abuse where it got anywhere near that level, so the whole question of whether the users can be identified, and what terms of their license agreement would come into effect, seem to me somewhat academic.

"although they know about the loophole"

Not necessarily. A certified representative for Telewest's IT department (and one who actually knows what they're talking about) has not posted here, therefore the matter of whether they're aware is unresolved. If they reply in e-mail that they know and don't care, then I will believe them. (Providing the sender of such an e-mail seems to know themselves what they're talking about)

"h2g2 is part of BBCi. BBCi is run by the BBC. The BBC is a non-profit organisation funded by its right to collect TV licence fees."

It's not as clear as that. Besides, paying a TV licence does not give you access to all of its services, no matter how unorthodox or 'underground' your methods of receiving the service are. Thus the TV licence matter is a non issue as far as I'm concerned. It has nothing to do with anything in this case.

"If you try to ban the use of the "magic email" you automatically ban digibox users from accessing h2g2 via there set top box so yeah it is about banning digibox users."

Wrong. It is about stopping access to h2g2 from a Telewest digibox unless Telewest give the go ahead for them to do so, and if they do, and do not increase the amount of bandwidth they have available, I shall be having sharp words with them, because being a Telewest customer myself, the taxation of the servers affects me aswell!

I have nothing against digibox users using h2g2. From an official connection. I can't believe how blind everyone seems to be, that no matter WHO has used it, HOW MUCH Telewest 'know' about it, and HOW MANY people will be affected by its termination, you are abusing a company's service. It's like people setting up their own sattelite dish and a stolen digibox with Sky - without Sky's permission. Sky, a less notorious for not knowing anything company than Telewest would promptly sort it out. I fail to see the difference. (Although Sky provide (or did, I think) Internet access via a modem cable from your Sky box to your phone line. In THAT case, you were actually paying for your access, though)

If tomorrow, Telewest buy masses of servers to provide more bandwidth, and add a limit-free address bar to their STB browser, then the matter would be resolved. The digibox users who I have issues with would find a site which they preferred (I know, I've seen it happen loads of times before), and the treasured digibox users could continue to use h2g2 through Telewest.

To me, the matter is simple: If you want to use Internet sites through a digibox, go and buy an Internet Set Top. You are NOT paying Telewest as an ISP.

Increase: "What exactly is your point?"
That was a reply to someone else who posted something about tracking down abusers of the system. Merely a matter of courtesy, replying to others' posts.

Oh, and by the way, this is not an issue of h2g2 banning digibox users. It's a matter in the hands of Telewest.

Ok so you tell me what is it about? Is it about stopping digiboxers gaining access to h2g2 or is it that you want the magic email locked out? If you want one you want the other as they are both linked, what prompted you and the author of this thread to take it upon yourselves to inform t/west of this email link? Was it to rid h2g2 of digibox users? If so then it was as I say to ban digibox users from using h2g2.
I already stated in a previous post that BBC licensing had nothing to do with the debate but it was mentioned before and now it’s cleared that issue up.

I know that t/west do know about the loophole in their system because I have spoken on the phone regarding it before, (nothing to do with using it on h2g2) it was regarding fire wall ,
I have nothing more to add to this thread regarding this matter at the moment so I will just follow its progress for now, I would however hope for the author of the thread to inform us of any information that t/west give her regarding this matter, and inform us all of the outcome of her correspondences, or this thread would have been a waste of effort

"That was a reply to someone else who posted something about tracking down abusers of the system. Merely a matter of courtesy, replying to others' posts."

And there I was thinking it was a reply to me pointing out that non-traceability of users is a red herring, since they are no more or less traceable than others.



""h2g2 is part of BBCi. BBCi is run by the BBC. The BBC is a non-profit organisation funded by its right to collect TV licence fees."

It's not as clear as that."

Yes, in terms of funding, it is. No, in terms of access, it isn't, and I'm glad everyone seems to agree now that that is irrelevant. I just want to be clear on the facts.