iPlayer 'Loophole' Closed

[talltim]

Any residence or business using a device capable of watching or recording live television (not catchup) requires a license, and that includes a PC, Laptop or Tablet. Your license covers you when you are outside your home but you need a separate license for each residence (defined as being separated by a lockable door in a multi residence building). E.g. each room in a student block, two required for a pub with its own flat.

Do I need a licence for my bathroom then ?

 

[northwichcat]

Any residence or business using a device capable of watching or recording live television (not catchup) requires a license, and that includes a PC, Laptop or Tablet. Your license covers you when you are outside your home but you need a separate license for each residence (defined as being separated by a lockable door in a multi residence building). E.g. each room in a student block, two required for a pub with its own flat.

Unless they've changed it you can use a portable device (like a mobile, tablet or laptop that's not plugged in to the mains) to watch TV anywhere if there's a licence for your permanent home address. However, if it's plugged in to the mains there needs to be a licence for the address you are watching TV at.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sometimes. My current IP (over a 3G UMTS connection) is listed by various tracers as being London, Hatfield, or Wanstrow. That's about 200 miles away at best, there.

On one site I sometimes get redirected to the Spanish home page (.es when I specify .com) but disabling my data connection and re-enabling it (changing the IP address) usually fixes that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do I need a licence for my bathroom then ?

If you share a residence like a student Hall of Residence a communal bathroom would be covered if anyone who shares it has a TV licence, if it's an ensuite bathroom attached to your bedroom you'd need a licence yourself.

 

[LexyBoy]

So to avoid detection:

1) don't admit to it
2) don't let the agent into your home.

3) don't put your telly in the front room where anyone can see you watching it from the street.

 

[Howardh]

AFAIK you don't need a radio licence these days - which means a TV could have an aerial attached simply for the radio stations available!

 

[grid56126]

I can't wait for the BBC to go subscription only as per Sky / Virgin etc. If they make you have a decoder as per the other subscription services this whole shambles would come to an end.

I know people with Sky Virgin who refuse to pay the license fee - "why should I if I pay for sky?" is the usual excuse.

I know it is not easy to just pay for the BBC channels as there is so much freeview tosh available, but Virgin and Sky manage to cross supply each others products in a protected way so I don't see it being an impossible task.

I find it amazing that just about everyone I know who refuses to pay it are also people who berate fare evaders, bemoan people on benefits and people who shop lift. There is, in my humble opinion no difference what ever and gloating about it to my face earns you a firm but decent discussion. It is theft pure and simple and it means the honest people are paying more than they need to. YOU OWE ME.

I am sure a few people will trot out anti BBC trolling about over paid actors and presenters (I agree although most dramas and shows are brought in these days) and that the shows are rubbish anyway. Well the sooner it goes subscription the better. Nearly all of my viewing tends to be BBC (except in the football season when it's Sky via Virgin or BT via Virgin most of the time.

I have two kids who have gone through University so I am well versed in the legalities of shared accommodation vs what students think they should do to avoid it. I am also well aware of landlords attitudes to not being shown a valid license. Indeed it is now appearing on tenancy agreements. And I see that as a good thing.

 

[jon0844]

I'd rather the fee is just included in normal taxation, as I'd hate to see the BBC relying on advertising, or subscriptions.

Plus other commercial TV operators would not want that either. There's already reducing money in advertising and sponsorship as it is.

 

[Busaholic]

I'd rather the fee is just included in normal taxation, as I'd hate to see the BBC relying on advertising, or subscriptions.

Plus other commercial TV operators would not want that either. There's already reducing money in advertising and sponsorship as it is.

I agree with the licence fee, but if it has to go then I would much rather it was included in general taxation than any other model.

 

[jon0844]

I meant to say that too. IF it went, I'd rather it went to general taxation, not as my first choice.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I'm very happy to pay the TV Licence Fee.

My life has been enriched by BBC broadcasts over the years, (more by radio than TV). When I put the amount of the fee in comparison to other costs, it seems to have been offering me excellent value for money - these could be, in appropriate proportions, the costs of buying specialist subject books, drama scripts, music scores, arranging and perticipating in personal interviews, university tuition fees, accessing the rights to audio or video recordings, library membership fees, academic journals, access to sports events and commenary, access to specialist commentators (e.g on political, legal, medical, religious, scientific, sociological, creative, heritage and ethical topics), theatre tickets, concert tickets (incl. music festivals), etc., etc.

Without the BBC, my comprehension of the world would be much poorer than it is. I'm still in its debt.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'd rather the fee is just included in normal taxation, as I'd hate to see the BBC relying on advertising, or subscriptions.

I completely disagree. I don't see why the BBC's "talent" (and describing Danny Dyer, a man who says you should cut your girlfriend's face in revenge if she dumps you as "talented" is a stretch) should be paid for from general taxation.

TV, rewarding as it sometimes can be, is not an essential public service. It should be paid for by the people who use it.

I'm very happy to pay the TV Licence Fee.

My life has been enriched by BBC broadcasts over the years, (more by radio than TV). When I put the amount of the fee in comparison to other costs, it seems to have been offering me excellent value for money

I'm happy to pay for the BBC, for the same reasons you have set out.

I'm not happy with the fact that one has to pay for the BBC regardless of whether one watches it or not. If one only watches ITV and Sky Sports (and I pity anyone who does) then there's no ethical reason why the BBC should be able to use the criminal courts to fine them £1000 and seek committal for non-payment of a BBC service they have not used.

If the BBC is truly the national treasure that everyone claims it is, a subscription model (i.e. you don't pay you don't watch) would not result in a single penny of reduced income. It may even increase it, as a BBC behind a paywall will not have freeloaders.

ETA the change about catch-up TV only applies to the iPlayer, and not ITV Player or 4OD, so obviously the government also think you should only have to pay the TV licence if you are watching BBC services.

 

[jon0844]

I don't watch a lot of the BBC, but I still feel it's worth a relatively low cost. I pay a lot more for Amazon Prime, Netflix and Now TV (although that is of course voluntary).

As long as the BBC makes enough for me to enjoy, and possibly learn from, rather than just be entertained in the most dumbed-down, brain switched off way, I am not too bothered about the stuff I simply won't watch.

I used to watch EastEnders but couldn't ever watch it today, except for my own personal game of seeing how long it goes for a scene where someone is genuinely happy (and nearly always it immediately gets interrupted by an argument, threat etc). I think it current stands at about 31 years!

 

[DarloRich]

I'm very happy to pay the TV Licence Fee.

My life has been enriched by BBC broadcasts over the years, (more by radio than TV). When I put the amount of the fee in comparison to other costs, it seems to have been offering me excellent value for money - these could be, in appropriate proportions, the costs of buying specialist subject books, drama scripts, music scores, arranging and perticipating in personal interviews, university tuition fees, accessing the rights to audio or video recordings, library membership fees, academic journals, access to sports events and commenary, access to specialist commentators (e.g on political, legal, medical, religious, scientific, sociological, creative, heritage and ethical topics), theatre tickets, concert tickets (incl. music festivals), etc., etc.

Without the BBC, my comprehension of the world would be much poorer than it is. I'm still in its debt.

I agree & I don't have a problem with paying the license fee - I simply don't have a tv at present. Once my house is renovated i will no doubt get a new TV and then pay the license. I DO listen to BBC radio a great deal and consider that to be a resource of inestimable value.

I do, occasionally, watch I player but will stop that until I have the TV. In honesty I don't miss not having a TV at all. I thought I would.

 

[meridian2]

I don't see how anyone can be 'indebted' to a corporation whose main revenue stream is NOT the licence fee, but the exclusivity rights to certain content, eg the FA Cup.
The BBC could happily exist without the licence fee.

 

[Greenback]

Maybe I;ma bit slow today, but what revenue does the FA Cup bring to the BBC?

 

[AlterEgo]

Maybe I;ma bit slow today, but what revenue does the FA Cup bring to the BBC?

Would like this explained too.

I was under the impression the BBC had to bid for the rights the same as everyone else!

 

[northwichcat]

The FA state the FA Cup Final has to be shown on free-to-view TV. When the options were BBC, ITV and Channel 4 it was only ever BBC vs ITV for the rights. However, now there's quite a lot of options - BT Sport showed the 2016 UEFA Cup Final for free, much to the annoyance of subscription payers.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don't see how anyone can be 'indebted' to a corporation whose main revenue stream is NOT the licence fee, but the exclusivity rights to certain content, eg the FA Cup.

Eh?

The BBC pay for the rights to content...

 

[AM9]

MAC addresses can be faked so can't be relied upon either

It's true that they can be faked but it takes some knowledge and practically only on a PC running Linux or Windows and a few routers. Either way, most would be unable to manage that well enough to evade detection.
Nobody expects to stop the most determined types, it's the mass abuse of licencing by those that think it doesn't apply to them that are the problem.

 

[grid56126]

It's true that they can be faked but it takes some knowledge and practically only on a PC running Linux or Windows and a few routers. Either way, most would be unable to manage that well enough to evade detection.
Nobody expects to stop the most determined types, it's the mass abuse of licencing by those that think it doesn't apply to them that are the problem.

Indeed, and in the same way some people have £50 (I guess that may have gone up) no questions asked Sky boxes, there will always be a way round for the most determined.

 

[Clip]

If you're suggesting illegal streams then isn't that quite ironic on a forum that regularly talks about problems with fare evasion on the railway?!

Not at all but the poster I was replying to was annoyed at not being able to watch bbc abroad and as such I use these when abroad so I can watch the bbc should I want to.

I begrudge paying the license fee but I have to and I should then be able to watch it whenever and wherever I am. Just like I can listen to worldservice just about everywhere

 

[AM9]

It would not surprise me at all to hear of those who are most strongly opposed to tax avoidance in its many guises have developed a different set of honesty values when it comes to them having to actually use their own money to buy a TV license.

I wouldn't necessarily make that association. There is a sub-culture in society which assumes that any avoidance of payment for something is reasonable and laws regarding fraud and theft don't apply to them as they are just fighting 'the system'. It is prevalent in taxation, licencing and purchasing (TV, VED, bus and rail fares, car parking, etc.) and is just as insidious as scrounging - a tabloid favourite (as in claiming benefits without entitlement).

 

[meridian2]

Eh?

The BBC pay for the rights to content...

I didn't say they didn't have to pay; I'm saying the licence fee isn't their only revenue stream and has proven to be antiquated and outmoded.

 

[Jonny]

I wouldn't necessarily make that association. There is a sub-culture in society which assumes that any avoidance of payment for something is reasonable and laws regarding fraud and theft don't apply to them as they are just fighting 'the system'. It is prevalent in taxation, licencing and purchasing (TV, VED, bus and rail fares, car parking, etc.) and is just as insidious as scrounging - a tabloid favourite (as in claiming benefits without entitlement).

Congratulations on conflating several issues into one... you're conflating proper theft (purchasing) and fraud (false statements re: benefits and services provided by private businesses/firms to others(fares and on-payment car parking)) with tax evasion which is illegal but any moral wrong could best be described as debatable.

There was a meme earlier this year, claiming that "taxation is theft". I'm not sure I would go that far, I would call it legalised extortion. In the above list I would only apply it to the first two. After all, you aren't directly paying for anything when you pay taxes. It all goes into the Consolidated Fund at the Exchequer. I consider taxes per se to be equivalent to protection money, the difference being that the former is to the government and the latter to organised crime.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Your IP should trace you to somewhere in the region of about a mile from where you live.

Only if you're not using a proxy server.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

IPs can't be relied upon as people could use proxies.

Does it now mean that technically any device capable of connecting to the Internet needs a TV licence?

To answer your question, the answer is "quite possibly", if you're watching BBC content. This is especially the case if it is via an account that is directly attached to your contact details.

However, many people don't bother with proxies. They have a second down-side in that they can slow the connection down.

 

[headshot119]

It's true that they can be faked but it takes some knowledge and practically only on a PC running Linux or Windows and a few routers. Either way, most would be unable to manage that well enough to evade detection.
Nobody expects to stop the most determined types, it's the mass abuse of licencing by those that think it doesn't apply to them that are the problem.

Quite easily faked on any number of devices, and not just limited to Windows and Linux either.

 

[AM9]

Quite easily faked on any number of devices, and not just limited to Windows and Linux either.

Please read what I actually said, "... and practically only on a PC ....", I've underlined the important qualifier for you. Yes of course, there are many ways of spoofing a mac, but the majority of would-be TV programme theives would give up if it was too complicated. Don't forget, BBC programmes are viewed on an iPlayer programme/application which must be downloaded form a BBC-approved repository. It would be simple enough for updates of that programme to detect the hardware mac and refuse to run if different from the presented connection.

 

[Busaholic]

I'm very happy to pay the TV Licence Fee.

My life has been enriched by BBC broadcasts over the years, (more by radio than TV). When I put the amount of the fee in comparison to other costs, it seems to have been offering me excellent value for money - these could be, in appropriate proportions, the costs of buying specialist subject books, drama scripts, music scores, arranging and perticipating in personal interviews, university tuition fees, accessing the rights to audio or video recordings, library membership fees, academic journals, access to sports events and commenary, access to specialist commentators (e.g on political, legal, medical, religious, scientific, sociological, creative, heritage and ethical topics), theatre tickets, concert tickets (incl. music festivals), etc., etc.

Without the BBC, my comprehension of the world would be much poorer than it is. I'm still in its debt.

Hear absolute hear!

 

[AM9]

Congratulations on conflating several issues into one... you're conflating proper theft (purchasing) and fraud (false statements re: benefits and services provided by private businesses/firms to others(fares and on-payment car parking)) with tax evasion which is illegal but any moral wrong could best be described as debatable.

Fraud is defined as: 'wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain' i.e it is not limited to private businesses/firms. Anybody can be guilty of it. Tax evasion is illegal and immoral, - the morality argument is the desperate defence of a criminal whose been found guilty.

There was a meme earlier this year, claiming that "taxation is theft". I'm not sure I would go that far, I would call it legalised extortion. In the above list I would only apply it to the first two. After all, you aren't directly paying for anything when you pay taxes. It all goes into the Consolidated Fund at the Exchequer. I consider taxes per se to be equivalent to protection money, the difference being that the former is to the government and the latter to organised crime.

Aha, the anti-tax warrior's argument. Let's establish just what tax is, - as in sums levied under statute by an elected government. Society recognises that functioning of this country, like most others, requires that certain activities, infrastructure and services are funded by the population for the general good. The elected government collects a contribution from those that have the ability to pay. The sum collected pays for these activities, infrastucture and services. That's how most civilised countries, whether capitalist or communist, work.
Of course, the system works but we all feel the pain at times. It is inevitable that out of the 48m or so working age adults in the UK that there are some freeloaders who think that they should be exempt from contributing to the common good, either because they personally are expected to pay more than they wish to pay, or they are just too selfish to consider others and expect somebody else to make the sacrifice. Society puts up with their ranting but not with them evading paying their share. Tax evasion is a crime against society.
'Taxation is theft", "legalised extortion" and "protection money" are just part of that rant.[/QUOTE]

 

[Tetchytyke]

Quite easily faked on any number of devices, and not just limited to Windows and Linux either.

It's relatively easy to fake things using a VPN or software such as Tor. But it gets a lot harder to fake it whilst simultaneously making sure that your fake is also a UK address.

'Taxation is theft", "legalised extortion" and "protection money" are just part of that rant.

Arguments about taxation in general are probably best for another thread. I do have a great deal of sympathy with the libertarian viewpoint on tax, but think the positives generally outweigh the negatives.

More specifically about the TV Licence- which I think most people agree is a tax- I don't think the positives outweigh the negatives. Television is not an essential service in general. There are arguments that some community programming, things that would not otherwise be made, are a social good. The problem is that the BBC is primarily focused on chasing ratings and any department that doesn't get sufficient viewing figures will be cut or closed. The BBC essentially no longer makes religious, community or educational programming. The BBC's output is now indistinguishable from the output of their commercial competitiors.

Regardless of how good or bad one thinks the BBC to be- I think it is mostly dross with the odd jewel- I am yet to see a single argument that justifies propping it up with guaranteed tax income that is not available to its competitors. It should have to stand on its own two feet. And if the BBC is the crown jewel that everyone claims it to be then they will have absolutely nothing to fear from becoming a commercial organisation. If they're indispensable everyone will gladly buy a BBC subscription.

 

[meridian2]

I completely agree with you Arctic Troll.

 

[jon0844]

The commercial stations are likely to be against the idea more than the general public.

The general public seem happy to sit on Facebook all day looking at viral websites full of ads to see pictures of cats and 'celebrities'.

I'd hope to God that this isn't one day ALL that gets produced because all of us are lazy at times.

I agree the BBC has tried to be more commercial in recent years and has dumbed down some of its programming significantly, but it still does produce the odd gem. It still does news coverage pretty well (despite cuts) and some home-grown commercial TV is profitable as it is sold via BBC Worldwide, so it's not ALL bad.

With more people watching TV on demand, perhaps one day there will be no real need for a BBC One, Two, Three, Four etc.. the BBC will just make programmes than people can watch anytime. Maybe then it could concentrate on what it does best, and leave the commercial stuff completely.

I have no idea if that would ever happen though, as there are obviously certain protections for the main terrestrial broadcasters and so the BBC might not even be allowed to do that even if the whole of the UK population are watching via the Internet.

(Likewise, I feel BBC Three going online only now was dumb. I don't think we're quite there yet)