[Closed] iPlayer licence required september?

Linked to the IP address assigned to your internet connection, not difficult to do really.

Lol yes that's really going to happen isn't it.

It's no less enforceable than the current licence is.

I heard about this a week or so back. Can't say I'm surprised, the whole concept of "broadcast TV" is shifting away in favour of other technologies. When our kids have grown up, the idea of having to watch something when it's aired will be as backwards as having three channels and choosing between black & white and colour is to us today. Whilst I'm all in favour of funding the Beeb, their licensing model is increasingly unsustainable.

It's an utter non law. I understand why they are doing it, but until you need a username and password it's utterly pointless.
Your TV is connected to an aerial you can get procecuted I believe. Not really applicable if your laptop is connected to the internet.

Linked to the IP address assigned to your internet connection, not difficult to do really.

😀
Gonna link it to my sim card whilst they're at it.

Your TV is connected to an aerial you can get procecuted I believe.

You believe incorrectly.

The licence fee is a bargain and worth it for the test card alone! I would gladly sell everything I own, and re-mortgage my house to help the BBC.

Brant, that's an age related quotation. (More depressingly I recognised it and how old it is). The yoot will need to search that one out. AMEX?

Yes this is real. What I haven't seen is whether you have to have a oucence to watch catch up (not at present)

Absolutely trivial for them to require you to type in a licence reference number before iPlayer works. They could then check that is only being used at one IP address and is a current licence. Mobile a bit more complicated but I am sure they can work something out. My TV licence is online and linked to an email address so easy to use that email address as verification for example

@sandwich indeed I was wondering if Brandt was really old enoigh to have seen the original 😉 ... see how far you can get with that

so "need" really means "supposed to have" rather than "will need to log in using the licence number"

Linked to the IP address assigned to your internet connection, not difficult to do really.

will continue to watch via ssh tunnel thru a VPS in London (although I only do catchup). For live BBC I'm only stealing the radiation that the satellite aims at my house.

Yes this is real. What I haven't seen is whether you have to have a oucence to watch catch up (not at present)

My understanding is that the licence around TV isn't changing (ie, you need a licence to watch any TV channels as broadcast, or recordings you make of such). The only change is to iPlayer, which you will need a licence to use at all, including catch-up. Or to put it another way, the iPlayer service is now a Brucie Bonus when you buy a TV licence.

So we only need to obey laws that can be easily enforced? That's good to know.

I watch almost zero live TV - and none at my own house - but pay the licence. There are somethings which are just worth it.

so "need" really means "supposed to have" rather than "will need to log in using the licence number"

Presumably.

It's difficult to police, for sure. ISPs could hypothetically provide them with the details of households using iPlayer, tracked by IPs (aside from those masking their connection, but they're a very large minority). Even if your IP changes "every time you connect" your ISP will have a record. There's a number of problems with this though, not least being that ISPs are highly likely to resist such requests very strongly, and it'd require a national compliance to work (so basically, legislation). TL;DR, it's not going to happen.

A password to log in would be a much more practical solution. Tie it to your licence and limit concurrent connections or registered devices; that's ostensibly what Sky Go does, so it's certainly technically viable.

I'd pay the license fee just for Radio 4, 5, 6 and the World Service. They should just introduce a log in for iPlayer based on your license number and a password. It's not hard.

I watch almost zero live TV - and none at my own house - but pay the licence. There are somethings which are just worth it.

Totally agreed. I find the wish by so many perfectly affluent folk to weasel out of funding the BBC an odd one. Granted, I don't think the current funding model works very well any more but it's still a brilliant thing that the UK should remain proud to have. I find 80-90%+ of it's output not for me but that still leaves way more than I could possibly consume, especially in an on demand digital era.

Yeah for the movie co's going to ISPs with an IP addy that was suspected of torrenting is one thing, but for BBC to go to every ISP with every IP is basically suspecting every user of iplayer of being a criminal. Not going to happen.

Login account perhaps. Might happen, might not.

Germany did it the easy way. Ditch licence, and effectively make it an extra charge on the council tax, which funds various tv/radio stations both national and regional. If you don't watch telly, or catchup, (especially if one of those that's smug about it) then that's your problem.

Anything that stops parasitic middle class spongers with an over developed sense of entitlement is fine by me.

Could I suggest public floggings for those who refuse to comply?
We could use a 26" inner tube, just to make it even more humiliating.

Or you could develop a system where those who want to use the BBC can pay for it - you know, like every other TV channel/service.

And for the record I do pay the TV licence but watch very little, if any, BBC either live or on line.

Just can't be arsed to go through the rigmarole involved in opting out of extortion amounting to £3 per week.

nickjb - Member
So we only need to obey laws that can be easily enforced? That's good to know.

Pretty much, laws only really work through mass compliance. The tv license one isn't one i'm particularly inclined to comply with. 😆

oldtalent - Member
It's an utter non law. I understand why they are doing it, but until you need a username and password it's utterly pointless.

Which is exactly how the prototype, BBC Redux, worked for employees. Or ex-employees that hadn't had their email addresses deleted even years after they left (*cough* not me)

I could definitely see the BBC's model turning into something like Netflix or Prime.

Germany did it the easy way. Ditch licence, and effectively make it an extra charge on the council tax, which funds various tv/radio stations both national and regional

Idem for France. Its worth the money for Fip alone...

It's amazing that in a world where people will pay 50quid for ad laden sky or subscribe to Netflix and Amazon that funding the BBC seems suck a hardship. Keeping the arms length distance that the license fee keeps it from general taxation and government is important. Then again it does seem most people would happily pirate everything...

ads for iplayer users without a P?

nope - they'd just log P users out every few days and get upset when you pointed out how much of a problem it was... 😉

it's just a change in the legislation / associated regulations and is the pre-cursor to blocking overseas use of iPlayer without payment of fees.. which will ultimately enable the BBC to build an additional revenue stream to fund more innovative high quality programming such as Bargain Hunt / Homes under the Hammer / Tramps go ballroom dancing etc.

mikewsmith - Member
It's amazing that in a world where people will pay 50quid for ad laden sky or subscribe to Netflix and Amazon that funding the BBC seems suck a hardship.

Then again it does seem most people would happily pirate everything...

I player is blocked overseas...
The BBC also has a great business selling shows overseas. The revenue from direct to consumer sales probably won't come close to the big deals.

They have recently changed the TV Licence system in Italy. There is no longer a separate licence fee. They have just lumped it on to your electricity bill. The idea is that if you have electricity you are capable of using the services of the State Broadcaster, RAI. Half of RAI's revenue came from the licence fee, the rest from advertising.
When there was a Licence many people did not bother, partly because there was only a 50 euro fine if you were caught watching TV without a licence.
Personally, I have no problem paying the UK TV Licence fee as I hate adverts and appreciate the quality of parts of the BBC's output.

It's amazing that in a world where people will pay 50quid for ad laden sky or subscribe to Netflix and Amazon that funding the BBC seems suck a hardship

To me it's about choice.

If I choose to pay for Sky I still have to pay the BBC for the privilege.

If I buy Asda cornflakes I don't have to still pay Kelloggs.

If you buy cornflakes, you have to pay for them.

Why is it acceptable to watch BBC output and not pay for it?

You don't get the choice to exclude the BBC. I just want to watch top gear reruns on dave. I'm not watching the BBC, but am still required to give them money.

If I choose to pay for Sky I still have to pay the BBC for the privilege

If you buy cornflakes, you have to pay for them.

Why is it acceptable to watch BBC output and not pay for it?

I don't but I am expected to subsidise the people who do choose to watch the BBC as they seem unprepared to pay the full cost of their viewing and want folk like me to contribute.

I don't have a TV, and cba with i-player and the rest. If it's not interesting live... And I don't want to subsidise those who watch 16 hours a day, or whatever.

@slowoldgit you don't have to pay unless your watching live, what's your point.

Mike - the "issue" for most is that Sky/Virgin/Netflix/Amazon is a choice.
You choose the package you want at the budget you find acceptable.
BBC is not a choice.
You either pay it (to watch live tv) or get prosecuted.
IMHO there should be no license fee for those paying for Sky/Virgin/etc. Covered under the subscription cost as they are redistributing and providing you with the means to watch it.
For those that don't - you pay for Live services as thats what the act covers. Catch up free as it doesn't so quite simply remove the "live" part from the service.
[i]IF[/i] they change it then none of it is watchable without a license - period.
Quite simply lock the service/app down without a valid login.

So you want to choose not to receive /pay for it but then want it added in the bill?
I'd like to see who consumes nothing from the BBC live after the event, TV radio or Web in the course of a year.

Rusty Spanner - Member
If you buy cornflakes, you have to pay for them.

Why is it acceptable to watch BBC output and not pay for it?

Because I can, is probably the most honest reason. I could give you some other bullshit, but it'd be kidding myself on.

No - read what I wrote - not what you [b][i]think[/i][/b] I wrote Mike.
[b]IF[/b] you have Sky, etc then the fee should be part of that service - not an [b]EXTRA[/b] over and above it!

If you choose not to watch it or user it then the service should not be available to you at all.
Its not hard is it?
Netflix, Sky, et al manage it easily enough without us all being forced by law to fund it.

hammyuk - Member
You either pay it (to watch live tv) or get prosecuted.

You either pay it or ignore the letters.

The prosecuted bit is only kept for the few examples that they are willing to make.

IF you have Sky, etc then the fee should be part of that service - not an EXTRA over and above it!

'Because I can, is probably the most honest reason. I could give you some other bullshit, but it'd be kidding myself on'

No worries.
You're just the kind of career criminal this is designed to catch out.
🙂

Rusty Spanner - Member
'Because I can, is probably the most honest reason. I could give you some other bullshit, but it'd be kidding myself on'

No worries.
You're just the kind of career criminal this is designed to catch out.

Suppose I better watch out for that detector van! 😆

IMHO there should be no license fee for those paying for Sky/Virgin/etc. Covered under the subscription cost as they are redistributing and providing you with the means to watch it.

If that were the case, the BBC's entire output would then be a premium service. Ie, you wouldn't get it for free as part of your Sky package, you'd be paying an extra *handwave* £10 a month for it. And you'd have adverts every 15 minutes. You'd be no better off, you'd just be giving the money to someone else.

I do take the point about choice, but I'd expect the number of people who like TV sufficiently to merit a Sky subscription and never watch / listen to any BBC output at all will be astonishingly small.

And for those who aren't paying for a subscription service and are just watching terrestrial TV arguing "I never watch BBC," where do you think the money comes from to build and maintain all the transmitters and associated broadcast costs? A big chunk of that comes from the BBC.

I suppose it's a bit like line rental. I really begrudge paying BT £16/month for a phone line that I never use (other than to receive calls about my mis-sold PPI and my recent car accident that wasn't my fault) just because it's required as a broadband bearer, but really, it's paying towards the maintenance of the infrastructure.

Anything that stops parasitic middle class spongers with an over developed sense of entitlement is fine by me

that is a bit harsh on the BBC

You either pay it or ignore the letters.

The prosecuted bit is only kept for the few examples that they are willing to make.

it's a bit more than a few http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23792388

IF you have Sky, etc then the fee should be part of that service - not an EXTRA over and above it!

So you want to remove the BBC's funding in totality by removing the licence fee. Then you want the BBC's output including for free in your Sky package without further charge?

You've thought about this, haven't you.

@big_n_daft they can't click the link they don't use the bbc....

(-:

This was linked from that page,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22947160

Excuses for non-payment given last year included:

[list][*]"Apparently my dog, which is a corgi, was related to the Queen's dog so I didn't think I needed a TV licence"[/*]
[*]"Why would I need a TV licence for a TV I stole? Nobody knows I've got it"[/*]
[*]"Only my three-year-old son watches the TV. Can you take it out of the family allowance I receive for him? He watches it so he should pay"
[/*][*]"I had not paid as I received a lethal injection"[/*]
[*]"I don't want to pay for a licence for a full year. Knowing my luck I'll be dead in six months and won't get value for money"
[/*][*]"I have lost weight recently and had to buy new clothes. That's why I could not afford to buy a TV licence"[/*][/list]

I watch iplayer via VPN thingy from Germany.
I'd happily pay the BBC to do so.

Much better programming than German equivalents. Even the GF would rather watch Lambing Live than Hausfrau Tausch.

DAB radio, anyone?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ariel/18679080

(for the benefit on non-licence payers who can't use that link, it states that "The BBC have agreed to pay £7m towards infrastructure needed to increase digital radio coverage across the UK.")

for the benefit on non-licence payers who can't use that link

It's got a bit childish now, time to go to a different thread.

It's got a bit childish now, time to go to a different thread.

big_n_daft - Member

it's a bit more than a few

They can summon Mr occupier to court all they like! 😉

[quote=mikewsmith ]@slowoldgit you don't have to pay unless your watching live, what's your point.

this is the change. you have to pay to watch catch up tv too from september.

Do those who take what they haven't paid for apply this to other aspects of their lives?

Bit of tax evasion?
Shoplifting?
Benefit fraud?

I would imagine that there's a statistical link, be interesting to see the figures.
🙂

Rusty Spanner - Member
Do those who take what they haven't paid for apply this to other aspects of their lives?

Bit of tax evasion? - I'm PAYE, but to be honest, i'd have no qualms about bumping the tax man if I could, it seems to be the in thing, so why not! 😆

Shoplifting? - I once stole a bottle of milk from someones doors step, when out camping as a 10 year old with my friends, I ended up putting it back as I felt so guilty! 😆

Benefit fraud? - touch wood, i've never claimed in my puff.

Not so much these days, but in my younger days, I'd happily ignore the drug laws and the drinking the street laws, canny really think of much else.

Whilst being firmly on the side of funding the BBC being a good thing and those that actively avoid (and actively consume its output) being a bit sad; I do have sympathy with those that want to avoid paying and using it but can't. It should be possible to watch all the free to air channels bar the BBC and not be forced to pay. It's daft that I can consume 10hrs a day of Radio 4 and not have to pay for it (assuming I don't need to for other reasons) but someone who only watches ITV should have to.

In reality though there must be a vanishingly smaller percentage of households that do not consume BBC output in some form every week if you include the website, radio, online and broadcast material.

In reality though there must be a vanishingly smaller percentage of households that do not consume BBC output in some form

My reaction to anyone who says "I watch TV but never, ever watch anything on BBC channels" is to reach for Adam Hills' big red button.

I do wonder though if a better question might be, who would actually pay for the BBC if it went to a subscription model?

@mike iplayer is easily available abroad as I am sure you must be aware.

If BBC is such a national asset it should be funded by the state, eg increase VAT by 1% raises the £4bn the BBC spends

I'd go for funding BBC via ads as first choice

More than happy to pay for the licence fee, we think it offers extremely good value for money (we hardly watch any live tv). Also equally happy to download anything that's 'exclusively available' on Sky, and watch that for free. 🙂 Will never pay a penny for anything produced by a company owned by Murdoch.

What's the moral situation regarding downloading stuff that's been on the BBC (that we pay a licence fee for, that's been available on iPlayer)? Because we miss stuff sometimes, or an episode of a series, and it's the only way to view it. Anyone going to be morally outraged about this?

Cougar - Moderator
IF you have Sky, etc then the fee should be part of that service - not an EXTRA over and above it!
So you want to remove the BBC's funding in totality by removing the licence fee. Then you want the BBC's output including for free in your Sky package without further charge?

You've thought about this, haven't you.

Did I say that though Cougar?
Nope - I didn't.
The point is - if Sky and the others are distributing the BBC content via their PPV network then it is them who you should be paying to view it - not the BBC.
After all - if you stop paying them - the service stops working. (OK they will send you out another card later for "freeview" but it is still needed to make the system work)
Why shouldn't then they pay the relevant amount to the BBC seeing as they are charging the customer for the service through their proprietary system?

Personally - I can genuinely say that I've not used the BBC's service at all in well over 2yrs - if not longer.
No aerial here, no Sky dish, I don't have iPlayer installed on any device and have no desire to.
BBC Radio I cannot stand of any kind - in fact I don't even listen to local radio.
The only TV programming watched was the ITV programme with Rachel Reilly about science which I watched with the kids and that was on catch up via ITV's website so not using any BBC network.
Anything else is either Netflix or Amazon - perhaps 2-3 times a week at most.

The funding to the BBC is an archaic and frankly its insulting that you are not given a choice of how/if you pay for the content you want to view.
Want to watch Westbenders? Fine - £1
Want to watch Bargain Twunt? Fine - £1
Your choice.
I choose not to pay for the permatanned muppet to prance around a carboot or for the fatso falling down the stairs to be shown 3.9m times a week depsite the programs being sold off to various other channels/broadcasters and netting the BBC billions in income along with DVD's, etc.
If it's "Public Broadcasting" then fine but the moment they start selling stuff commercially and making a profit - it stops and they fund it that way not by a "charter" that forces anyone who might one day want to watch Coronation Street on a commercial network.
Whilst I'm not disputing that the BBC pay towards the network systems, antennas, cabling etc - so do [b]ALL[/b] of the other broadcasters. Most of who actually have their own infrastructure due to the BBC not allowing shared usage.

I repeat, it should be funded by advertisements or a grant from central Government if people believe its a national service.

Totally bonkers to me you pay £500 for a very nice TV then £1,500 to the BBC over it's lifetime whether you watch their programmes or not.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

After a childhood spent mesmerised by BBC nature documentaries, I was very pro-BBC. Until I started paying attention to their news outputs commitment to some perverse ritualistic sense of "balance" while fielding reporters and presenters with very clear axes to grind. Nowadays they don't seem much better than FOX in that respect and can go whistle.

**** the BBC and their licence fee. Rotten scumbags the lot of them.

BBC News has a clear left/centre bias. If it was a commercial channel the news would be much more right leaning.

We pay the TV License and haven't had a TV for years. More than happy to support the BBC.

@ Mike - perhaps you missed the comments about funding TV via leccy bills or local taxes.

They are spending money on sending me monthly threatening letters because I don't have a TV license.

@slow yes quite entertaining that! I think they finally found me in after about 18 months and I happily showed them round so they could see there was no TV. They asked why I never replied to the letters and I explained I thiught they where rude and threatening so why should I ?

If they chose to presume that I have a TV and I'm a criminal, they can go away right off.

I watched some TV in a holiday let recently. There was little to interest me, and I can get better weather forecasts on the internet. That's forecasts which include wind speed and direction.

jambalaya - Member
BBC News has a clear left/centre bias. If it was a commercial channel the news would be much more right leaning.

Totally agreed. I find the wish by so many perfectly affluent folk to weasel out of funding the BBC an odd one. Granted, I don't think the current funding model works very well any more but it's still a brilliant thing that the UK should remain proud to have. I find 80-90%+ of it's output not for me but that still leaves way more than I could possibly consume, especially in an on demand digital era.

I repeat, it should be funded by advertisements or a grant from central Government

BBC News has a clear left/centre bias

I don't but I am expected to subsidise the people who do choose to watch the BBC as they seem unprepared to pay the full cost of their viewing and want folk like me to contribute.

The BBC is nothing more than the ministry for propaganda - I'd happily see it dispanded - Its mendacious brand of impartiality I'd say is severely detrimental - I Player is like Facebook - with some devices you can't even unistall it .. Government TV no thanks .. I own screens not televisions ..

jambalaya - Member
BBC News has a clear left/centre bias. If it was a commercial channel the news would be much more right leaning.

[b]The BBC is nothing more than the ministry for propaganda[/b] - I'd happily see it dispanded - Its mendacious brand of impartiality I'd say is severely detrimental - I Player is like Facebook - with some devices you can't even unistall it .. [b]Government TV no thanks ..[/b] I own screens not televisions ..