Paying the existing licence will allow any number of devices. I repeat, a subscription service on top of the licence fee is a daft, in fact unacceptable idea.

I know it will currently allow any number of devices, but I feel a reasonable limit sufficient to cover a family's use would be appropriate. The problem with unlimited numbers is that it could be easily abused. If large numbers of people consume content off the same licence than I think it's not unreasonable that (beyond a reasonable limit) that there should be an incremental charge albeit nothing like the full cost of a licence.

They can do what they like, but everything will be available for free on certain sites as it is now!

It may be that it is available free, but the game here is to maximise revenues and keep costs of enforcement under control. The vast majority of people will find it too much trouble to evade the enforcement processes and won't bother to go through the effort. The civil enforcement of breach of copyright is a rather different issue to the one of TV licence enforcement as the former is a civil matter (unless done on an industrial scale), whilst the latter is a criminal law matter.

Youtube is stuffed full of copyright BBC programming material which the BBC show little sign of clamping down on, so I doubt they are much bothered with that at the moment. It's the recently broadcast material that's at issue.

In reply to a post by professor973:

They can do what they like, but everything will be available for free on certain sites as it is now!

But you still need to have a TV licence to do so unless you wish to break the law.

License or not, it will avoid subscription fees which is the way things will go. Many are refusing to pay the license tax as the BBC and their bias refuse to adhere to their remit of impartiality !

The BBC have always been biased. To the side opposite to each individual's standpoint .

Totally agree with you. Anyone who hasn't got a licence at present and has been using iPlayer for free TV is hardly going to now pay a subscription. The only ones that would be penalised would be us licence payers. All this requiring a licence for iPlayer is a complete waste of time as those non payers will now just migrate to torrent downloads. Virtually everything is available, Insultingly many BBC programs are shown in the US well before the UK, The Musketeers being a recent example having been shown in the US some three months earlier. Paying for a VPN service is far cheaper than paying for the TV licence.

If using a device using the 3 or 4g network then they use iirc CGN carrier grade nat or most mobile carriers use it, so an ip to one person ain't that easy

and in any event an IP address don't identify the person's watching the content, only the subscriber, that isn't enough evidence to convict someone, besides court orders to compel ISP's coms providers to supply subscribers details for ip's is going to cost them,
then there is the issue of where the content is downloaded from ie which CDN and which server ect, but if those with wi fi buy a cat5/6 cable then their blag is foiled

They don't have any equipment to detect someone watching i player via wifi they , of course just as always won't go into details about their non existent /evidential tv detection equipment have recently themselves admitted this to dispel the misinformation scare stories by own woeful media BBC press office

Edited by tommy45 (Tue 09-Aug-16 02:58:07)

I don't think people using mobile & 4G are primary targets for this. It's an expensive way to watch a lot of TV coverage compared to using mainstream BB links via WiFi.

Hard wired links are irrelevant to any system which relies on detection via an iPlayer app or plugin. There was never any possibility that WiFi snooping was feasible. I also doubt that detecting a few uses of iPlayer from any give locality would trigger anything. What the BBC would be looking for is a persistent pattern consistent with residential use. Also things like what sort of device would be useful as access via a smart TV or set top box would be more indicative of residential use than an occasional access from a mobile user who might be covered by a licence from a different property. I would think this would only be used to start a real investigation (or, more likely, send out warning letters to frighten people into buying a licence).

I think that, ultimately, the issue will be resolved by requiring iPlayer apps/plugins to be authenticated against a TV licence. No doubt there will be workarounds, but this is a numbers game. If it just becomes too much trouble to get round iPlayer protection and it still carries the risk of prosecution (not just a breach-of-copyright civil case), then I suspect that enough will be deterred for it not to be financially significant to the BBC.