What's new
By:
Filters

more blocks on the way?

I am with virgin. If I don't want to use a vpn I don't need to.

It's is correct that app devs have been having issues with some hosting but easy enough to get around.

The types of blocks have not changed in years but thete is no way a isp could in reality block a vpn in the real world or they would of done it with torrenting sites which is more of a problem than IPTV.

They have more than likely targeted app rebranders and websites.

I think they pretty much class anybody using a firestick as using a modified device.

For e.g a sheild you can download legitimate streaming apps you have modfied nothing.

As for going around siezing devices from peoples houses I very much doubt any police force in the world has that sort of resources to write out possibly a million search warrants over a weekend
 
Last edited:
mike123 said:
Russia is a dictatorship I doubt any civilised country will follow there lead.

It will only be a temporary ban while the war is going on because they don't want the citizens knowing what is really going on.
Click to expand...
I agree as Russia blocked all media outlets from reporting when they invaded ukraine
 
LeoMes7i said:
The Football game is minute 12 and 10 seconds it goes back to 11 minute and 20 seconds like replays itself mainly happens on Sky Sports and Bt Sports when streaming is few seconds behind sat
Click to expand...
that's likely a source issue and you need to speak to your provider, nothing to do wiith blocks which this thread is discussing
 
My isp has started throttling one of my providers at random times, VPN fixes it.


Fairly surprised considering they're a new ish fibre provider (grain)
 
grog68 said:
typical daily mail scare mongering. I do like the fact they say viewing can get you 10 years Jail, but then state a provider with over 30,000 subsribers and runing a Million pound operation recently got jailed for 2 and a half years. so if he got 2 and a half years, are end users reallly going to get 10 years?
Click to expand...

30 months was what he was sentenced to.
He gets a third off straight away, so 20 months.
With good behaviour he'll do 12 if he's unlucky, probably less than that
 
First people said the police didn't have the resources to even knock on the door of those selling iptv, then they said nobody would ever be sent to prison for selling iptv, now they say you'll only serve short sentences in prison for selling iptv.

As much as some of you guys on this thread are the tinfoil hat brigade, there's an equal number of you who have your heads well and truly buried in the sand. Thankfully for me I fall somewhere in the middle.
 
pupuqiop said:
First people said the police didn't have the resources to even knock on the door of those selling iptv, then they said nobody would ever be sent to prison for selling iptv, now they say you'll only serve short sentences in prison for selling iptv.

As much as some of you guys on this thread are the tinfoil hat brigade, there's an equal number of you who have your heads well and truly buried in the sand. Thankfully for me I fall somewhere in the middle.
Click to expand...
Some sid the police don't have the resources to go knocking on end users doors for viewing iptv like some one posted.
You find it's mainly the main providers get caught

userlee5267 said:
Warning issued to Amazon firestick users streaming illegal content
Click to expand...
Like how the agent was waiting high vi's jacket that said fact on it.
They always go on about organised crime and iptv is funding it I could name a few things that is funded by organised crime but nothing gets done about that.
If you can get upto 10 year for watching I'm a celebrity on iptv you may as well go out and do a more serious crime with less time 🙃🙃
 
bazcfc1 said:
Like how the agent was waiting high vi's jacket that said fact on it.
Click to expand...
That photo is fake.
The door and frame are not real.
Frame isn't sealed to the brickwork.
Door has no knocker, numbers, letterbox or anything else.
Why would a FACT officer advertise the 'fact' that he works for FACT?
He'd be in plain clothes if he wanted someone to open that fake door that's leaning against a wall.
I'm surprised they didn't put up a photo of the suspect being led away, wearing a stripey top and carrying a sack that says SWAG on it.
 
pabloescaban said:
That photo is fake.
The door and frame are not real.
Frame isn't sealed to the brickwork.
Door has no knocker, numbers, letterbox or anything else.
Why would a FACT officer advertise the 'fact' that he works for FACT?
He'd be in plain clothes if he wanted someone to open that fake door that's leaning against a wall.
I'm surprised they didn't put up a photo of the suspect being led away, wearing a stripey top and carrying a sack that says SWAG on it.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point bud
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top