This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Have found it impossible to find the minute of the law regarding TV Licensing and the iPlayer.
Is it legal for me (with a TV license at home) to watch the iPlayer on a friends WiFi who doesn't have a TV license?
If I use a company phone to use the iPlayer is it me or the company thats liable for the TV license?
Is it the person that owns the device that's liable or the person watching or the person that providing the connection?
Gonna be huge fun to see how the BBC is going to police this. Wonder if they'll take the porn route and issue 1000's of infringement notices to the IP address after a court battle with the telco's to get the info.
If ever there was a stupid law then this is it a TV License for Internet TV.
Just thought.....
Watching the iPlayer without a license is a CRIMINAL offence
Downloading that same programme off a torrent site is a CIVIL offence
Like WTF!
Post edited at 18:58
9
2
3
In reply to MG:
Yes, especially the 2003 bit.
> Try the Coummications Act (2003) Part 4 Clause 363
> It's a great read.
Yes, especially the 2003 bit.
In reply to Indy:
Are you sure about that?
> Watching the iPlayer without a license is a CRIMINAL offence
Are you sure about that?
In reply to Fraser:
John Whittingdale the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sports seems to think so.
Why do you believe it isn't?
John Whittingdale the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sports seems to think so.
Why do you believe it isn't?
In reply to Indy:
I was pondering this the other day when a house guest was watching something on iPlayer on their laptop, as we don't have a TV licence. They were watching a pre-recorded show and not a live online broadcast, so that currently is not a problem but I did wonder about a hypothetical situation where they were watching as-broadcast TV over iPlayer, or any iPlayer after the imminent law change.
Devices that are powered only by their own internal battery are covered where-ever they are used if the device's owner has a TV licence for their home address. I imagine therefore that my guest would not be breaking the law at my property if their laptop was not plugged in to a wall power outlet via its charger, and would be breaking the law if it was plugged in.
So, after the law changes on iPlayer... Whilst the scum contracted to do TVL enforcement could hypothetically use legal means to demand access to internet service provider data to identify households where (a) no licence is present and (b) iPlayer is being accessed, they entire a quagmire over how it was being watched and whether a licence was needed.
I'm hoping that my ISP offers me an option to block iPlayer from their end to make sure we are demonstrably in the clear. Mrs Tree already gets anxious at the vile threat-o-grams TVL/crapita harras us with, I don't want another avenue opening up. If the ISP won't I will configure our ADSL hub to block the service if I can.
I am grateful at least that some degree of moderation prevailed and that the BBC's catch up service is the only one that will require a TV licence - following the logic of the TV licence for broadcast TV, all catch up services should require a TV licence. I see this as another sign of the beast weakening.
> Is it legal for me (with a TV license at home) to watch the iPlayer on a friends WiFi who doesn't have a TV license?
I was pondering this the other day when a house guest was watching something on iPlayer on their laptop, as we don't have a TV licence. They were watching a pre-recorded show and not a live online broadcast, so that currently is not a problem but I did wonder about a hypothetical situation where they were watching as-broadcast TV over iPlayer, or any iPlayer after the imminent law change.
Devices that are powered only by their own internal battery are covered where-ever they are used if the device's owner has a TV licence for their home address. I imagine therefore that my guest would not be breaking the law at my property if their laptop was not plugged in to a wall power outlet via its charger, and would be breaking the law if it was plugged in.
So, after the law changes on iPlayer... Whilst the scum contracted to do TVL enforcement could hypothetically use legal means to demand access to internet service provider data to identify households where (a) no licence is present and (b) iPlayer is being accessed, they entire a quagmire over how it was being watched and whether a licence was needed.
I'm hoping that my ISP offers me an option to block iPlayer from their end to make sure we are demonstrably in the clear. Mrs Tree already gets anxious at the vile threat-o-grams TVL/crapita harras us with, I don't want another avenue opening up. If the ISP won't I will configure our ADSL hub to block the service if I can.
I am grateful at least that some degree of moderation prevailed and that the BBC's catch up service is the only one that will require a TV licence - following the logic of the TV licence for broadcast TV, all catch up services should require a TV licence. I see this as another sign of the beast weakening.
Post edited at 19:58
1
In reply to Indy:
I thought that at the moment you could watch it as CatchUp without a licence. Has something changed?
I thought that at the moment you could watch it as CatchUp without a licence. Has something changed?
1
In reply to Fraser:
http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-08-02/youll-need-a-tv-licence-to-watch-...
> I thought that at the moment you could watch it as CatchUp without a licence. Has something changed?
http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-08-02/youll-need-a-tv-licence-to-watch-...
In reply to wintertree:
Yes I know that, but right now watching iplayer without a licence isn't necess arily an offence (unless you're watching it live or recording live.)
Yes I know that, but right now watching iplayer without a licence isn't necess arily an offence (unless you're watching it live or recording live.)
Post edited at 20:04
1
In reply to Indy:
It was meant to be decriminalised last year but wasn't. In Scotland, I think it's a non-recordable offence but almost never comes to court. The PF issues fiscal fines that are at a much lower level than the scare tactics indicate. In the past there had been several cases of heavy fines and non-payment resulting in Community Service orders. Lots of single mothers without a two pennies to rub together doing community service for letting their kids watch TV isn't great for the reputation of the law and the state so the whole thing has been watered down considerably.
I haven't had a TV for many many years and they are all over me like a rash again and won't take a telling. I do wonder about the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and s.39 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. Between the TV Licence racketeers and ten years of harassment from the British Gas racketeers (I don't have gas), no wonder I spend so much time away.
It was meant to be decriminalised last year but wasn't. In Scotland, I think it's a non-recordable offence but almost never comes to court. The PF issues fiscal fines that are at a much lower level than the scare tactics indicate. In the past there had been several cases of heavy fines and non-payment resulting in Community Service orders. Lots of single mothers without a two pennies to rub together doing community service for letting their kids watch TV isn't great for the reputation of the law and the state so the whole thing has been watered down considerably.
I haven't had a TV for many many years and they are all over me like a rash again and won't take a telling. I do wonder about the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and s.39 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. Between the TV Licence racketeers and ten years of harassment from the British Gas racketeers (I don't have gas), no wonder I spend so much time away.
6
In reply to Fraser:
I am confused. You asked "has something changed" and I posted a link that states that something is about to change.
I assume the OP is discussing this imminent change in the law given the timing of their post and their use of the future tense in places ("Gonna be huge fun to see how the BBC is going to police this. ") although they could have been more explicitly clear that they are apparently discussion the post September 1st 2016 situation.
> Yes I know that, but right watching iplayer without a licence isn't necess arily an offence (unless you're watching it live or recording live.)
I am confused. You asked "has something changed" and I posted a link that states that something is about to change.
I assume the OP is discussing this imminent change in the law given the timing of their post and their use of the future tense in places ("Gonna be huge fun to see how the BBC is going to police this. ") although they could have been more explicitly clear that they are apparently discussion the post September 1st 2016 situation.
4
In reply to Indy:
I was just thinking that it would be a good project to build a black and white 52" screen TV and get a B&W licence just to wind the bu99ers up.
Can you just imagine them standing looking a a massive screen and finding no way of making it do colour and having to accept me paying £49. That appeals to me.
I was just thinking that it would be a good project to build a black and white 52" screen TV and get a B&W licence just to wind the bu99ers up.
Can you just imagine them standing looking a a massive screen and finding no way of making it do colour and having to accept me paying £49. That appeals to me.
11
In reply to Indy:
I have no licence and watch about 30mins max of programming per month on iplayer.
I'm going to continue to watch it without the licence when the law changes. Knowing what I know about the TV licence system, they have no real enforcement strategy and the cost of enforcement infrastructure outweighs by far the extra income they would be able to claw back. There are never any repercussions.
I've been getting letters once a month for 5 years now about not having a licence (even though I have no TV). They threaten court action etc, but I have never answered and nothing has every come of it.
I use the resource, but I feel that I pay enough taxes for services I don't use already. I am very pro high taxation, to the rich in particular, and am happy to pay a few quid per year on top to cover the BBC.
People who listen to the radio use the service and don't pay anything. Why should a very low user iplayer user need to pay???
The BCC earn just under £4 billion each year from licence fees.The UK government earn around £500 billion on income tax, NI, VAT, etc etc per year. Tack on a pound her and a pound there to give to the BBC and we save all of the money running the TV licensing system.
I have no licence and watch about 30mins max of programming per month on iplayer.
I'm going to continue to watch it without the licence when the law changes. Knowing what I know about the TV licence system, they have no real enforcement strategy and the cost of enforcement infrastructure outweighs by far the extra income they would be able to claw back. There are never any repercussions.
I've been getting letters once a month for 5 years now about not having a licence (even though I have no TV). They threaten court action etc, but I have never answered and nothing has every come of it.
I use the resource, but I feel that I pay enough taxes for services I don't use already. I am very pro high taxation, to the rich in particular, and am happy to pay a few quid per year on top to cover the BBC.
People who listen to the radio use the service and don't pay anything. Why should a very low user iplayer user need to pay???
The BCC earn just under £4 billion each year from licence fees.The UK government earn around £500 billion on income tax, NI, VAT, etc etc per year. Tack on a pound her and a pound there to give to the BBC and we save all of the money running the TV licensing system.
6
10
In reply to Indy:
The obvious thing for the BBC to do is issue a code with your TV license that allows you to log into iplayer on some number (3?) devices. This seems to work for netflix. Hope they'll do that.
The obvious thing for the BBC to do is issue a code with your TV license that allows you to log into iplayer on some number (3?) devices. This seems to work for netflix. Hope they'll do that.
6
In reply to bigbobbyking:
Exactly what I was thinking. Subscription codes with each licence seems the only way they could realistically cover this issue. Still open to potential abuse, but better than relying on trust.
Always baffles me that people aren't prepared to pay for the service, if indeed they watch BBC content.
Exactly what I was thinking. Subscription codes with each licence seems the only way they could realistically cover this issue. Still open to potential abuse, but better than relying on trust.
Always baffles me that people aren't prepared to pay for the service, if indeed they watch BBC content.
Post edited at 21:23
4
In reply to Indy:
Is the iPlayer Radio app free to use (as radios are?)
Given that BBC News website (in my opinion, along with R4, worth the fee) uses iPlayer to provide video clips (and these are viewable outside of the UK unlike iPlayer) will those require a licence?
TV detector vans were a joke - possibly in the past they could have detected harmonics from the tuner circuit, but really they just looked for an aerial or the light from a TV in the front room didn't they? And then in later years just harass addresses with no licence.
I am interested about the iPlayer on public / work WiFi. I hope it doesn't lead to it being blocked.
Is the iPlayer Radio app free to use (as radios are?)
Given that BBC News website (in my opinion, along with R4, worth the fee) uses iPlayer to provide video clips (and these are viewable outside of the UK unlike iPlayer) will those require a licence?
TV detector vans were a joke - possibly in the past they could have detected harmonics from the tuner circuit, but really they just looked for an aerial or the light from a TV in the front room didn't they? And then in later years just harass addresses with no licence.
I am interested about the iPlayer on public / work WiFi. I hope it doesn't lead to it being blocked.
1
In reply to bigbobbyking:
From what i understand the government recommended they do this, but they decided not to. Easier to chase down the criminals than to explain to Dear old Mrs Ethel from Upton Snodsbury, North Piddle, Worcestershire, who has kindly written into ''Points of View'', asking how to log into her iplayer account so that she can catch up on The Big Allotment Challenge.
I dont have a TV licence, i occasionally watch a program on Iplayer, however I could happily live without it, the entire network is 99% garbage. Ill stick to using the money i would have spent on a licence on paying separately for films and programs im actually interested in.
Not heard a peep from the licencing people since we said we wont be paying either which is quite nice.
From what i understand the government recommended they do this, but they decided not to. Easier to chase down the criminals than to explain to Dear old Mrs Ethel from Upton Snodsbury, North Piddle, Worcestershire, who has kindly written into ''Points of View'', asking how to log into her iplayer account so that she can catch up on The Big Allotment Challenge.
I dont have a TV licence, i occasionally watch a program on Iplayer, however I could happily live without it, the entire network is 99% garbage. Ill stick to using the money i would have spent on a licence on paying separately for films and programs im actually interested in.
Not heard a peep from the licencing people since we said we wont be paying either which is quite nice.
3
In reply to Jim Fraser:
youtube.com/watch?v=i7lq9MCUEww&
> I was just thinking that it would be a good project to build a black and white 52" screen TV and get a B&W licence just to wind the bu99ers up.
> Can you just imagine them standing looking a a massive screen and finding no way of making it do colour and having to accept me paying £49. That appeals to me.
youtube.com/watch?v=i7lq9MCUEww&
1
In reply to Philip:
They now have WiFi snooping vans according to The Telegraph.
But still can't find any info on iPlayer liability.
> TV detector vans were a joke
They now have WiFi snooping vans according to The Telegraph.
But still can't find any info on iPlayer liability.
In reply to plyometrics:
Always baffles me that people that don't want the BBC, don't watch the BBC are forced under criminal law to pay for it.
The irony is that the iPlayer loophole was closed because it was seen as unfair yet it appears fair to charge non-users. Go figure.
> Always baffles me that people aren't prepared to pay for the service, if indeed they watch BBC content.
Always baffles me that people that don't want the BBC, don't watch the BBC are forced under criminal law to pay for it.
The irony is that the iPlayer loophole was closed because it was seen as unfair yet it appears fair to charge non-users. Go figure.
3
In reply to wintertree:
Yes, sorry I should have been clearer myself. It was his statement that: "Watching the iPlayer without a license is a CRIMINAL offence . It isn't necessarily but it will be, that's the only point I was trying to make.
> I assume the OP is discussing this imminent change in the law given the timing of their post and their use of the future tense in places ("Gonna be huge fun to see how the BBC is going to police this. ") although they could have been more explicitly clear that they are apparently discussion the post September 1st 2016 situation.
Yes, sorry I should have been clearer myself. It was his statement that: "Watching the iPlayer without a license is a CRIMINAL offence . It isn't necessarily but it will be, that's the only point I was trying to make.
2
In reply to Indy:
Am I the only one who has heard nothing about this change other than on ukc. You would have thought that some sort of warning at the start of programmes on the I player would have been appropriate
Am I the only one who has heard nothing about this change other than on ukc. You would have thought that some sort of warning at the start of programmes on the I player would have been appropriate
In reply to andy.smythe:
Apparently when the change comes in there'll be a click through boxey thing. It's not law yet, though.
Apparently when the change comes in there'll be a click through boxey thing. It's not law yet, though.
In reply to Indy:
My understanding of the current law, as it applies to devices capable of receiving television broadcasts, is that you are covered outside your home so long as the device you are watching on is powered by internal batteries. So a smartphone or tablet would be covered - probably even if it was on charge at the time you were watching, because if push came to shove you could always unplug it. (Note that using a smartphone or tablet to watch live content on iPlayer already requires the device to be covered by a licence, so there's really nothing new here.)
That does suggest that watching something live on iPlayer on your desktop PC in the office would not be covered (although a lot of workplaces do actually hold TV licences, for the TV in the canteen and so forth).
The law as it stands right now says that the licence covers the premises, and full-time residents of those premises who watch elsewhere using battery-powered equipment. It is irrelevant who owns the device, so if you're watching on a borrowed TV at home, or on the move on your company mobile, you'd still need a licence. Neither is it relevant how the device receives the programme. You could be using a feed off your neighbour's TV aerial*, or piggy-backing on their wifi, but you'd still need a licence for your own home.
The law may get a shake up at some point in the future but I don't see that the change coming in on 1st September invalidates the rules as they currently stand.
* This is precisely the situation which currently prevails in blocks of flats with communal aerials - every flat needs a licence.
My understanding of the current law, as it applies to devices capable of receiving television broadcasts, is that you are covered outside your home so long as the device you are watching on is powered by internal batteries. So a smartphone or tablet would be covered - probably even if it was on charge at the time you were watching, because if push came to shove you could always unplug it. (Note that using a smartphone or tablet to watch live content on iPlayer already requires the device to be covered by a licence, so there's really nothing new here.)
That does suggest that watching something live on iPlayer on your desktop PC in the office would not be covered (although a lot of workplaces do actually hold TV licences, for the TV in the canteen and so forth).
The law as it stands right now says that the licence covers the premises, and full-time residents of those premises who watch elsewhere using battery-powered equipment. It is irrelevant who owns the device, so if you're watching on a borrowed TV at home, or on the move on your company mobile, you'd still need a licence. Neither is it relevant how the device receives the programme. You could be using a feed off your neighbour's TV aerial*, or piggy-backing on their wifi, but you'd still need a licence for your own home.
The law may get a shake up at some point in the future but I don't see that the change coming in on 1st September invalidates the rules as they currently stand.
* This is precisely the situation which currently prevails in blocks of flats with communal aerials - every flat needs a licence.
In reply to andy.smythe:
It was all over the news yesterday. hard to miss it.
> Am I the only one who has heard nothing about this change other than on ukc. You would have thought that some sort of warning at the start of programmes on the I player would have been appropriate
It was all over the news yesterday. hard to miss it.
1
In reply to Martin W:
So, despite having a TV License at home if I went to a local coffee shop and watched the iPlayer on my laptop I'd be ok but if I plugged it in to charge whilst watching I'd need to buy an additional license?
Also all those weekend house guests that plug in devices are comittting a criminal offense by watching the iPlayer catchup?
So, despite having a TV License at home if I went to a local coffee shop and watched the iPlayer on my laptop I'd be ok but if I plugged it in to charge whilst watching I'd need to buy an additional license?
Also all those weekend house guests that plug in devices are comittting a criminal offense by watching the iPlayer catchup?
In reply to graeme jackson:
Yes, the BBC will be using anti-terrorism legislation to spy on your home WiFi.
> It was all over the news yesterday. hard to miss it.
Yes, the BBC will be using anti-terrorism legislation to spy on your home WiFi.
In reply to Indy:
There was a Radio 4 skit the other day where they talked about a van looking through your window (legal apparently) , but that needs the curtains to be open , and the screen facing the window. The second method was them picking up the data packates, and similar to morse code, if they can match the series of small and large packets being downloaded on your equipment, that matches the profile of any BBC programmes (which presumably they will have on a database) then they can apply to a court to access you house to investigate.
Sounds all a bit far fatched. The vans/camera thing is probably just a BBC project fear to scare folks into buying a licence.
There was a Radio 4 skit the other day where they talked about a van looking through your window (legal apparently) , but that needs the curtains to be open , and the screen facing the window. The second method was them picking up the data packates, and similar to morse code, if they can match the series of small and large packets being downloaded on your equipment, that matches the profile of any BBC programmes (which presumably they will have on a database) then they can apply to a court to access you house to investigate.
Sounds all a bit far fatched. The vans/camera thing is probably just a BBC project fear to scare folks into buying a licence.
Post edited at 12:24
In reply to Jim C:
Yikes!
fishing trip or what.
> them picking up the data packates, if they can match the series of small and large packets being downloaded on your equipment, that matches the profile
Yikes!
fishing trip or what.
1
In reply to Indy:
>They now have WiFi snooping vans according to The Telegraph.
And the way to defeat them is with a 99p cat5 network cable from your router to the TV.
There are several legal issues they might face sniffing your wifi connection.
Under RIPA Crapita are not listed, but the may be sub contracted by the Postal Service who do have powers to snoop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000#A...
Then there is the Computer Misuse Act, where they may be seen as 'attempting to gain unauthorised access' to your home network.
Then there is the EU Human rights (Yeah, yeah, I know . We told Europe to bugger off. But we haven't yet.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human...
And of course there is the technical issue of WPA2 encryption used on just about every home router.
Having spent some considerable time cracking WPA2 myself, in a professional context, I'd be interested to see how they would manage it whilst driving down the road. I have read that the bbc could send data using weird packet sizes, but a lot of routers would normalise those to a standard MTU. As the content is at layer 7 it would be hard to see what's happening if traffic is encrypted at a lower layer.
And then you have router wifi SSID names. Who's to say that the SSID 'home-wifi' belongs to house number 1, or 2 or 10?
The obvious place to do it would be at the ISP. But these days a lot of ISP, don't use webcaches and so would not have the infrastructure in place to spy on people. If they were to provide this data, they can charge for the costs of providing it. So expect to see fines going up, as costs are passed on. (And don't mention proxies and VPN's, as you can get block lists of these, updated daily.)
In short, I think the detector vans are a scare tactic. The usual single mums and old ladies will get frightened and confess. Everyone else will say "I don't have to answer your questions, sod off."
If they were serious about funding the BBC, you'd only have to look in the local paper to see how much court time is taken up by people up before the bench for non payment. If that money was factored in by the government, along with the detection costs, and given to the BBC, I wonder if they would break even?
>They now have WiFi snooping vans according to The Telegraph.
And the way to defeat them is with a 99p cat5 network cable from your router to the TV.
There are several legal issues they might face sniffing your wifi connection.
Under RIPA Crapita are not listed, but the may be sub contracted by the Postal Service who do have powers to snoop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000#A...
Then there is the Computer Misuse Act, where they may be seen as 'attempting to gain unauthorised access' to your home network.
Then there is the EU Human rights (Yeah, yeah, I know . We told Europe to bugger off. But we haven't yet.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human...
And of course there is the technical issue of WPA2 encryption used on just about every home router.
Having spent some considerable time cracking WPA2 myself, in a professional context, I'd be interested to see how they would manage it whilst driving down the road. I have read that the bbc could send data using weird packet sizes, but a lot of routers would normalise those to a standard MTU. As the content is at layer 7 it would be hard to see what's happening if traffic is encrypted at a lower layer.
And then you have router wifi SSID names. Who's to say that the SSID 'home-wifi' belongs to house number 1, or 2 or 10?
The obvious place to do it would be at the ISP. But these days a lot of ISP, don't use webcaches and so would not have the infrastructure in place to spy on people. If they were to provide this data, they can charge for the costs of providing it. So expect to see fines going up, as costs are passed on. (And don't mention proxies and VPN's, as you can get block lists of these, updated daily.)
In short, I think the detector vans are a scare tactic. The usual single mums and old ladies will get frightened and confess. Everyone else will say "I don't have to answer your questions, sod off."
If they were serious about funding the BBC, you'd only have to look in the local paper to see how much court time is taken up by people up before the bench for non payment. If that money was factored in by the government, along with the detection costs, and given to the BBC, I wonder if they would break even?
2
In reply to dread-i:
so targeting using anti-terror laws is a more likely option? surely a simple login linked to licence is the way to go?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/shortcuts/2016/aug/08/how-will-the-bbc-de...
so targeting using anti-terror laws is a more likely option? surely a simple login linked to licence is the way to go?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/shortcuts/2016/aug/08/how-will-the-bbc-de...
Post edited at 13:49
In reply to Indy:
Yes.
No.
Not if they have a TV licence.
Did you read Martin's post...?
> So, despite having a TV License at home if I went to a local coffee shop and watched the iPlayer on my laptop I'd be ok
Yes.
> but if I plugged it in to charge whilst watching I'd need to buy an additional license?
No.
> Also all those weekend house guests that plug in devices are comittting a criminal offense by watching the iPlayer catchup?
Not if they have a TV licence.
Did you read Martin's post...?
In reply to Indy:
The phrase "anti-terrorism " legislation is a bit of a pet hate of mine - it's actually the legislation that covers surveillance and access to communications data.
Legislation that is the corner-stone to any (and many!) 20th (not even 21st) century investigations.
If we didn't have the legislation we'd have unregulated surveillance - and I don't think anyone wants that.
In any event - as highlighted by dread-i I'm not even sure TV detectors would be covered, and as it is the method described sounds dangerously close to interception - hence a warrant would be likely to be required.
> Yes, the BBC will be using anti-terrorism legislation to spy on your home WiFi.
The phrase "anti-terrorism " legislation is a bit of a pet hate of mine - it's actually the legislation that covers surveillance and access to communications data.
Legislation that is the corner-stone to any (and many!) 20th (not even 21st) century investigations.
If we didn't have the legislation we'd have unregulated surveillance - and I don't think anyone wants that.
In any event - as highlighted by dread-i I'm not even sure TV detectors would be covered, and as it is the method described sounds dangerously close to interception - hence a warrant would be likely to be required.
Post edited at 19:09
In reply to ogreville:
I find it extraordinary that people think spending approaching 1% of tax revenue on subsidising a broadcaster, is either necessary or good value
> The BCC earn just under £4 billion each year from licence fees.The UK government earn around £500 billion on income tax, NI, VAT, etc etc per year. Tack on a pound her and a pound there to give to the BBC and we save all of the money running the TV licensing system.
I find it extraordinary that people think spending approaching 1% of tax revenue on subsidising a broadcaster, is either necessary or good value
1
In reply to dread-i:
I doubt there are many TV owners using iPlayer without a licence. So it's more likely to be portable device owners. Very easy to get the app to report location and WiFi ssid.
All the "detector" van needs to do is cross-reference device location with postcode database for TV licence.
Also, anyone selling TVs passes the purchasers address to TV licence. Who's to say they won't ask ISPs to do the same for anyone using iPlayer - exactly the same as the film studios going after the torrent users.
Plenty of ways they can get s list of people to harass. And why it's important they clarify who has to have a licence. My company does not need one currently, but we don't block iPlayer at work. I watch via a VPN back to my company when I'm abroad.
Similarly, I knew very few students with TVs but if I was at university now (not 20 years ago) I'd be watching iPlayer (we had listen again with real player).
I doubt there are many TV owners using iPlayer without a licence. So it's more likely to be portable device owners. Very easy to get the app to report location and WiFi ssid.
All the "detector" van needs to do is cross-reference device location with postcode database for TV licence.
Also, anyone selling TVs passes the purchasers address to TV licence. Who's to say they won't ask ISPs to do the same for anyone using iPlayer - exactly the same as the film studios going after the torrent users.
Plenty of ways they can get s list of people to harass. And why it's important they clarify who has to have a licence. My company does not need one currently, but we don't block iPlayer at work. I watch via a VPN back to my company when I'm abroad.
Similarly, I knew very few students with TVs but if I was at university now (not 20 years ago) I'd be watching iPlayer (we had listen again with real player).
1
In reply to JJL:
I don't personally think that it is extraordinary at all, but look at it another way then -
Defence costs £40 billion a year. Cancel the Trident Replacement and there would be enough to cover tv licensing and many other things. Education and entertainment over an intangible 'deterrent' any day.....even if it is Strictly Come Dancing'!
The way TV licensing is run is massively wasteful anyway. Capita earn so much from running the service and charge for all those wasted letters, 'enforcement officers', management, administration, financial management. All a total waste
> I find it extraordinary that people think spending approaching 1% of tax revenue on subsidising a broadcaster, is either necessary or good value
I don't personally think that it is extraordinary at all, but look at it another way then -
Defence costs £40 billion a year. Cancel the Trident Replacement and there would be enough to cover tv licensing and many other things. Education and entertainment over an intangible 'deterrent' any day.....even if it is Strictly Come Dancing'!
The way TV licensing is run is massively wasteful anyway. Capita earn so much from running the service and charge for all those wasted letters, 'enforcement officers', management, administration, financial management. All a total waste
2
1
In reply to Philip:
TV's have had the iPlayer app installed as default for a couple of years. I mostly watch iPlayer on my TV.
Retailers haven't been required to pass on purchase info for years.
As for device location..... your showing 52 wifi networks and you know that the one called "eat me" is using the iPlayer. How do you know its physical location to check if the address is licensed? The only is to go back to the ISP with a court order to get the address so you can check its status. Now thats going to get real expensive real quick not to mention time consuming and a public relations disaster.
> I doubt there are many TV owners using iPlayer without a licence. So it's more likely to be portable device owners. Very easy to get the app to report location and WiFi ssid.
> All the "detector" van needs to do is cross-reference device location with postcode database for TV licence.
> Also, anyone selling TVs passes the purchasers address to TV licence.
TV's have had the iPlayer app installed as default for a couple of years. I mostly watch iPlayer on my TV.
Retailers haven't been required to pass on purchase info for years.
As for device location..... your showing 52 wifi networks and you know that the one called "eat me" is using the iPlayer. How do you know its physical location to check if the address is licensed? The only is to go back to the ISP with a court order to get the address so you can check its status. Now thats going to get real expensive real quick not to mention time consuming and a public relations disaster.
1
In reply to ogreville:
I agree about scrapping the licence. We really don't need a state broadcaster
I agree about scrapping the licence. We really don't need a state broadcaster
2
5
In reply to Indy:
I know I already posted this. But I can't believe we're having all these discussions about all the complicated ways the BBC might try to enforce this. Why isn't a TV license just equal to a subscription to BBC iplayer, like netflix or amazon prime. Seems completely mad to be suggesting vans driving around trying to detect wifi packet sizes and so on when they have control over who is connecting to their iplayer server.
I know I already posted this. But I can't believe we're having all these discussions about all the complicated ways the BBC might try to enforce this. Why isn't a TV license just equal to a subscription to BBC iplayer, like netflix or amazon prime. Seems completely mad to be suggesting vans driving around trying to detect wifi packet sizes and so on when they have control over who is connecting to their iplayer server.
In reply to bigbobbyking:
The BBC is absolutely TERRIFIED of anything that involves a subscription and unless things are SEEN to be enforced the people won't buy a license.
Just shows how hugely outdated a TV licence fee is but the BBC rather likes it guaranteed £5,200 million each year hence they fight tooth and nail for it.
> I know I already posted this. But I can't believe we're having all these discussions about all the complicated ways the BBC might try to enforce this. Why isn't a TV license just equal to a subscription to BBC iplayer, like netflix or amazon prime. Seems completely mad to be suggesting vans driving around trying to detect wifi packet sizes and so on when they have control over who is connecting to their iplayer server.
The BBC is absolutely TERRIFIED of anything that involves a subscription and unless things are SEEN to be enforced the people won't buy a license.
Just shows how hugely outdated a TV licence fee is but the BBC rather likes it guaranteed £5,200 million each year hence they fight tooth and nail for it.
In reply to Indy:
Agreed, so why don't they just treat the license as a subscription. With your TV licence you get a username and password to access iPlayer.
> The BBC is absolutely TERRIFIED of anything that involves a subscription and unless things are SEEN to be enforced the people won't buy a license.
> Just shows how hugely outdated a TV licence fee is but the BBC rather likes it guaranteed £5,200 million each year hence they fight tooth and nail for it.
Agreed, so why don't they just treat the license as a subscription. With your TV licence you get a username and password to access iPlayer.
In reply to graeme jackson:
But the nature of not having a TV licence means I don't watch much TV including the news
But the nature of not having a TV licence means I don't watch much TV including the news
2
In reply to Indy:
It seems like a minefield.
I can watch stuff on iPlayer at home where I have a license and could watch it at a second home on iPlayer too but not watch it on TV as I don't have a license there. Unfortunately, there's no signal at the second home so the iPlayer option doesn't exist.
All seems strange..... I could have 20 TVs running in one home on one license but if I only have one in my main residence, which is off when I am away, I can't ' transfer' the license to my holiday home.
It seems like a minefield.
I can watch stuff on iPlayer at home where I have a license and could watch it at a second home on iPlayer too but not watch it on TV as I don't have a license there. Unfortunately, there's no signal at the second home so the iPlayer option doesn't exist.
All seems strange..... I could have 20 TVs running in one home on one license but if I only have one in my main residence, which is off when I am away, I can't ' transfer' the license to my holiday home.
In reply to bigbobbyking:
Like the old 'detector vans' stuff, I suspect them driving around sniffing encrypted wifi packets for signs of iPlayer is simply a lot of bollocks.
> Seems completely mad to be suggesting vans driving around trying to detect wifi packet sizes and so on when they have control over who is connecting to their iplayer server.
Like the old 'detector vans' stuff, I suspect them driving around sniffing encrypted wifi packets for signs of iPlayer is simply a lot of bollocks.
3
In reply to Fredt:
If the bbc was truly serious about the license fee it could in this digital world hide behind a paywall like SKY. The fact that it doesn't tells you ALL you need to know
> With your TV licence you get a username and password to access iPlayer.
If the bbc was truly serious about the license fee it could in this digital world hide behind a paywall like SKY. The fact that it doesn't tells you ALL you need to know
1
In reply to wintertree:
I wonder if there is a reason some people get more harassing letters than others? I've moved houses quite a lot over the last few years, between Scotland and England. In all cases I've registered on the TVL website that I have a TV but don't watch live broadcasts (internet repeats only). Of all those moves, I only got a response to that registration once with an intimidating letter. This was one of the English places. Of all the rest of the English places, and all the Scottish places I've been, I've never once received a followup letter to that online registration. Lucky me perhaps. But I hear of others who continually receive intimidating letters. Any idea why that is?
> I'm hoping that my ISP offers me an option to block iPlayer from their end to make sure we are demonstrably in the clear. Mrs Tree already gets anxious at the vile threat-o-grams TVL/crapita harras us with, I don't want another avenue opening up. If the ISP won't I will configure our ADSL hub to block the service if I can.
I wonder if there is a reason some people get more harassing letters than others? I've moved houses quite a lot over the last few years, between Scotland and England. In all cases I've registered on the TVL website that I have a TV but don't watch live broadcasts (internet repeats only). Of all those moves, I only got a response to that registration once with an intimidating letter. This was one of the English places. Of all the rest of the English places, and all the Scottish places I've been, I've never once received a followup letter to that online registration. Lucky me perhaps. But I hear of others who continually receive intimidating letters. Any idea why that is?
In reply to Indy:
Anyone know who's responsible if someone is watching live TV on your wifi?
We don't have a TV licence. We don't watch live TV (we only watch the occasional DVD).
We do have plenty of people using our wifi though and have no idea if they watch live TV.
Anyone know who's responsible if someone is watching live TV on your wifi?
We don't have a TV licence. We don't watch live TV (we only watch the occasional DVD).
We do have plenty of people using our wifi though and have no idea if they watch live TV.
In reply to wintertree:
You're crediting the TV License people with far more menace than they deserve. It's just Capita, and their staff have no more authority than a Tesco trolley boy. If you're not doing anything that requires a TV license then you are fine, just ignore the letters and if they come to the door tell them to get lost. We have a huge TV clearly visible from the street. It's never displayed a broadcast TV programme in its life.
If you like you can also write to TV Licensing and formally retract the implied right of access that allows them to access your property to approach the front door (check google for details). Then they're limited to standing on the pavement and wishing (actually what seems to happen at this point is they back off.. presumably doing this identifies you as one of the relatively small number of people who actually understand the rules and therefore not a good shake down prospect).
I'm quite irritated that I'm probably going to have to buy a license now they've announced this change, since my wife is addicted to watching miscellaneous BBC dramas (only on catch up). Telling the licensing people to shove it periodically was quite satisfying.
> I'm hoping that my ISP offers me an option to block iPlayer from their end to make sure we are demonstrably in the
> clear. Mrs Tree already gets anxious at the vile threat-o-grams TVL/crapita harras us with, I don't want another avenue
> opening up. If the ISP won't I will configure our ADSL hub to block the service if I can.
> clear. Mrs Tree already gets anxious at the vile threat-o-grams TVL/crapita harras us with, I don't want another avenue
> opening up. If the ISP won't I will configure our ADSL hub to block the service if I can.
You're crediting the TV License people with far more menace than they deserve. It's just Capita, and their staff have no more authority than a Tesco trolley boy. If you're not doing anything that requires a TV license then you are fine, just ignore the letters and if they come to the door tell them to get lost. We have a huge TV clearly visible from the street. It's never displayed a broadcast TV programme in its life.
If you like you can also write to TV Licensing and formally retract the implied right of access that allows them to access your property to approach the front door (check google for details). Then they're limited to standing on the pavement and wishing (actually what seems to happen at this point is they back off.. presumably doing this identifies you as one of the relatively small number of people who actually understand the rules and therefore not a good shake down prospect).
I'm quite irritated that I'm probably going to have to buy a license now they've announced this change, since my wife is addicted to watching miscellaneous BBC dramas (only on catch up). Telling the licensing people to shove it periodically was quite satisfying.
1
In reply to JJL:
We haven't got one.
> I agree about scrapping the licence. We really don't need a state broadcaster
We haven't got one.
1
1
In reply to mullermn:
Tough titties.
The fact it's on catch up, to me, is irrelevant.
You're watching a BBC production, which are paid for by the license fees, so we're not subjected to endless moronic advertisements.
> I'm quite irritated that I'm probably going to have to buy a license now they've announced this change, since my wife is addicted to watching miscellaneous BBC dramas (only on catch up). Telling the licensing people to shove it periodically was quite satisfying.
Tough titties.
The fact it's on catch up, to me, is irrelevant.
You're watching a BBC production, which are paid for by the license fees, so we're not subjected to endless moronic advertisements.
In reply to The New NickB:
Of course we do, for as long as the BBC is funded by license fees.
The influence of the state and the London establishment is very clear on the BBC's very biased position on issues like Scottish Independence, immigration, Europe and the royals.
> We haven't got one.
Of course we do, for as long as the BBC is funded by license fees.
The influence of the state and the London establishment is very clear on the BBC's very biased position on issues like Scottish Independence, immigration, Europe and the royals.
1
In reply to Lusk:
It may be irrelevant to you, but it isn't (/wasn't) to the law.
If there was a way to make a donation to the BBC programme making budget I'd have happily done so, but I'm not funding the protection racket that Capita operate while I have no obligation to do so.
It may be irrelevant to you, but it isn't (/wasn't) to the law.
If there was a way to make a donation to the BBC programme making budget I'd have happily done so, but I'm not funding the protection racket that Capita operate while I have no obligation to do so.
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...