Forums Forums Enthusiast Forums A - Z Gadgets & Tech Catch-Up Users Will Now Have To Pay Licence Fee

BBC IPlayer Catch-Up Users Will Now Have To Pay Licence Fee
All users of BBC iPlayer's catch-up service will have to pay the £145.50 licence fee, the Government announced today.

In a big blow to many households without TVs, Culture Secretary John Whittingdale said that he would bring forward legislation swiftly to allow the Corporation to charge for the first time for those who replay programmes on demand.

As part of the plan to let the BBC recoup £150m in losses caused by iPlayer catch-up, many younger Britons who watch the BBC on their laptop or tablet will now face the annual fee or face prosecution.

However, Mr Whittingdale said that decriminalising non-payment of the licence fee will be "carefully considered" by the government this summer.

The crackdown on the iPlayer loophole is part of a controversial deal that will allow the BBC to recoup some of the cash it will lose from having to foot the bill for free TV licences for the over-75s.

The Culture Secretary told MPs that the BBC taking over the £650m cost of the free licences would be phased in from 2018-19 with the corporation bearing the full cost by 2020-21.

Labour's Shadow Culture Secretary Chris Bryant attacked the plans as 'shabby backroom deal', while Former BBC reporter and Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw also rounded on the announcement, claiming it was "a significant assault.

Source : click me

oh well that's scuppered my wifes viewing--damn she will want to talk to me know in the evenings----might actually be worth getting a tv licence now!

And how do they plan on enforcing this? Good luck to them!

I suppose if there is reasonable cause to check they could use the new snooping laws to see if you were watching a live broadcast.

Snooping laws, your ISP must keep records of what you have visited and watched in the last 12 years.

If your using a data link the app does say about the TV licence requirement to view live streams, i suspect that the prompts will change.

So if a 8 year old downloads the app, whos responsible ??

This from what my understanding is only BBC so if your an eastenders catch up person what your back if you do not have a licence.

I could easily not watch BBC.
There were rumours to make the BBC like a subscription because in its current form its not working.

An utter disgrace. If only Margaret Thatcher had privatised the BBC (as she was planning to do) instead if implementing the poll tax.

This parasitic institution knowingly sheltered Jimmy Savile, Stuart Hall, and Rolf Harris. Furthermore, they've got all their own way. They make millions from selling the likes of Doctor Who overseas *and* they get the compulsory licence fee too.

The majority of people who are prosecuted for evasion are single mothers on low incomes. Meanwhile, they pay obscene amounts of money to talentless cretins like Jonathan Ross.

Well said

It gets on my nerves the Lottery shows on a Saturday,they've started the wish list now,so where does the money come for all these expensive prizes.I got fined once for not having a tv licence but that was a while ago & we'd not longed moved house

Makes sense to need licence to watch iplayer.

I can't understand the call to privatise the BBC - have we got a need for yet another advert filled commercial station? Then there are problems that the standards on the rest of the channels will fall as there is no advert-free channel to compete against any longer. In my times in America the only stations of any quality were the Weather Channel and a couple of the news channels, all the other channels were rubbish and just a few minutes between adverts.

It looks like Channel 4 is about to be privatised.

Do you really think if the BBC is privatised then the TV licence will disappear? The licence is to receive all TV broadcasts, not just the BBC.

erm, two words - LIKE HELL!! The BBC is funded by both THE EU and US, no more baby, no more.

It is a receiving licence, true. But not one of the commercial stations get a penny.

Moved to my current house 5 years ago and have received a letter every 2 weeks to remind, then threaten me that The house doesn't have a TV licence. The wording of the letters is very deliberate and intimidating. They keep threatening to "open an investigation" "this is the information you will need when we take you to court" then "were sending the boys round" then it reverts back to Your house doesn't have a TV licence. Got crafty last week as they changed the usual envelope it comes in.
I just cant see how they can actually catch you watching TV as you do not have to let them enter your house unless they have a warrant and a police officer present. Even then they have to see you watching a programme. In order to get a warrant they must have "evidence" or "reasonable evidence" to get a warrant issued.
When they call on their own they only have an implied right of access to your front door. You do not have to open the door to them. You can politely (or not so politely) tell them to leave your property on pain of them trespassing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQeKy1v-R-I

Agree totally that the letters are highly intimidating, I have a draw full of them I kept for the record. Had a visit once, let him in and he seemed a bit miffed to observe at least two TV sets but he had to accept my explanation that they were not freeview capable and not connected to a freeview box.

On old CRT TV's you could detect them in use from outside the property, slightly harder with modern sets, if they got desperate they could video the illumination of a room from a screen through the window and see if it corresponds to a live broadcast which would be enough to obtain a warrant and if this found the presence of a TV then that would probably pass though court.

They don't have to catch you watching a program, the communications act also makes it an offence to install or intend to install, not just "use".

I noticed one of their 'detector vans' parked near a bus stop I was waiting at and had a good look at it.

It was clearly fake. The instruments made no sense, and showed no signs of ever having been used. They may really have working detector vans, but I doubt they'd work very well with modern tellies which are quite well screened these days. I think they rely on scaring evaders by driving these fakes about.

However, I pay my license as I believe in the BBC and support it as best I can. This government obviously hates it and is doing all it can to cripple it.

Do they? I thought Johnathan Ross left the BBC after than scandal with Russel Brand. Doesn't he just have a chat show on ITV?

Ross still picks up little contracts with the BBC here and there.

At the end of the day his pay is proportionate to his viewing figure - supply and demand. I don't understand where his supporters come from but the same applies to the throngs of people that watch football and hence the silly money involved in that as well.

I was under the impression that it was only an offence to use a TV set or PC to watch programmes as they are being broadcast or recording them. It cannot be an offence to install one as many people only ever use it to watch dvds.or even vhs etc

A lot of rumours on the internet aren't there

From the Communications Act 2003 .....

From the TV Licensing Website (the People who try and fine you using Capita agents)

Its never been tested in court, however there is a slight ambiguity in the act. The definition of a "television receiver" in another act clearly states that it is a device which is either installed or used, the ambiguity arises in this act because it is talking about installing a television receiver (which by definition is already installed).

The authorities don't want it to be tested in court and so are happy that if there is no intention to use then they will not class it as an installation.

Since this act came into power in 2004, I am not aware of anybody being fined for the effective "possession of the ability to receive", however under previous acts they most certainly were on the balance of probability that they did use the equipment if it was installed in such a way as was likely to be used.

imho

This is what this thread is about:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35708623

What this effectively means is that those with internet connections but no "live" TV will have to pay the compulsory rip-off licence fee.

If you don't want to pay, don't watch it.

Suppose the only way to police this is to enter your TV Licence details on the IPLAYER website or vice versa. Thats the only way they will police this. If someone wants to watch TV online then obviously the only way is hide your selves. But seriously it needs scrapping completly its a waste of time. Adverts on BBC is the way forward i think if no one wants to pay it...

At present there is no legal avenue tv licensing can pursue to see if you have been watching i player.

The BBC have stated that they are looking at having a compulsory log-in process for iplayer, presumably the registration details will contain checkable information.

what's more they pay just two employees, Laura kuenssberg, and that odd chap who does News Night, half a million between them. Jeremy Paxman was on a million. This is unreal, when we think of what all the salaries must amount to and how they continue to churn out repeats. We on Poverty Row, pay to keep other people in well paid jobs. That seems to be the general rule of thumb, these days.