http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/f ... bc-iplayer

Has he inadvertently answered the old 'I've only got a computer, do I need a licence?' question? I still see arguments about that one.

I seriously doubt that 500k people don't have TVs in the UK. Now, whether they have them AND a licence...

I can't help thinking that since iPlayer was something the Beeb came up with, has already had all it's content paid for and said content broadcast and sold around the world at profit, that he's somewhat taking the piss. Not to mention that it's one hell of a promotional tool. It's a bit late to realise you missed a trick, especially when you're not the only provider with a catch-up service that's free!

We don't have a tv (or license) we listen to the radio a lot and rarely (perhaps once a year or so) use the computers to watch something on iPlayer. I know 4 other households which don't have a tv and do use iPlayer quite often, but I thought the point was that a TV license was only required for the receiving of tv programmes as they are broadcast? Changing that to include iPlayer won't impact me at all, but I wonder if that will include things like the Channel 4 or ITV watch-again services?

I thought you needed a TV license to listen to the radio too. Unless it's streamed over t'internet?

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ102/

Short answer: no.

I must confess I was under the impression that, since you can watch live on iPlayer now anyway simply having a computer capable of streaming live via iPlayer or other service (and presumably a broadband connection that meets the minimum bandwidth requirements) got round the limitation of 'receiving equipment' anyway as pretty much anything that can open an internet browser was capable of receiving.

Or maybe I've been wearing my tinfoil hat too much recently.

Edit:
Or perhaps not.

I didn't know you could watch live on iPlayer? Surely that defeats the original purpose?

If they start charging for iplayer then they'd better lift the international block on it. If I'm paying for it, I want to be able to watch it when I'm at work.

Go here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/

Click on the Watch Live link (in the TV Channels box)

This comes up:



http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-y ... _plt_check

So if you are watching TV as it’s broadcast online, or you are recording a transmission, you need a license. The fact that you are not using a TV set is immeterial.

If you give up the TV and only use iPlayer for delayed programmes you could abandon the TV licence. If too many people did this they might simply extend the remit of the licence fee.

I'm not entirely sure how feasible it would be to prove that you only watched delayed programs.
TV licensing aren't exactly well known for embracing the innocent until proven guilty idea.

If you got rid of the TV then if they came in there would be no TV for them to bill you for. They could still take you to court but if you do not have a TV how can they charge you for a TV that you do not have and so cannot use.

Because, the change of rules means that the rules no longer simply apply to having a TV, they essentially apply to any device that can connect to the internet and run iPlayer. In other words, it's no longer about whether or not you have a TV it's about whether you have a any of a TV, a PC, a smart phone or tablet and broadband.
Under a strict and bloody-minded interpretation of the current licensing rules you have to have no TV, no broadband and no smartphone/tablet.
I realise that's all a bit tinfoil hat but the point I was trying to make was that there's really no real need to extend the rules further as they've effectively already arrived at point where the only people who most definitely don't need a TV licence are those who don't have a TV, broadband and at most have a mobile that can't connect to the internet.

I think if you currently do not watch live TV and only watch it delayed via iPlayer then you would not need a licence now. This extension would cover this. It does seem fair. These technologies were not around at the time the law was written.