We appear to live in an age where people love to complicate the uncomplicated. If you own a TV or any mobile device capable of receiving/watching iPlayer then you require a TV licence.
That's uncomplicated, and it's also wrong. The current law only requires those watching live TV to have a license. People watching catchup without a licence are not (currently) breaking any law.
JamesB - 8 minutes ago »
We appear to live in an age where people love to complicate the uncomplicated. If you own a TV or any mobile device capable of receiving/watching iPlayer then you require a TV licence.
That's uncomplicated, and it's also wrong. The current law only requires those watching live TV to have a license. People watching catchup without a licence are not (currently) breaking any law.
I know that, and it's this which must change, from not breaking the law to breaking it - hence you need a TV licence.
My previous post and the part you quote was simply a one liner advising what the change needed to be.
Faust - 3 minutes ago »
JamesB - 8 minutes ago »
We appear to live in an age where people love to complicate the uncomplicated. If you own a TV or any mobile device capable of receiving/watching iPlayer then you require a TV licence.
That's uncomplicated, and it's also wrong. The current law only requires those watching live TV to have a license. People watching catchup without a licence are not (currently) breaking any law.I know that, and it's this which must change, from not breaking the law to breaking it - hence you need a TV licence.
And then you have to decide: is this revised law going to require those watching the other catchup players to have a licence? If it doesn't, the loophole will still exist.
Will those watching NetFlix require a licence? Mr NetFlix is sure to challenge that. But if NetFlix can be watched without a licence, while homegrown catchup cannot, then not only will the loophole still exist but the unfairness will be so obvious people won't accept it.
It's just not a simple problem.
JamesB - 2 hours ago »
Faust - 3 minutes ago »
JamesB - 8 minutes ago »
We appear to live in an age where people love to complicate the uncomplicated. If you own a TV or any mobile device capable of receiving/watching iPlayer then you require a TV licence.
That's uncomplicated, and it's also wrong. The current law only requires those watching live TV to have a license. People watching catchup without a licence are not (currently) breaking any law.I know that, and it's this which must change, from not breaking the law to breaking it - hence you need a TV licence.
And then you have to decide: is this revised law going to require those watching the other catchup players to have a licence? If it doesn't, the loophole will still exist.
Will those watching NetFlix require a licence? Mr NetFlix is sure to challenge that. But if NetFlix can be watched without a licence, while homegrown catchup cannot, then not only will the loophole still exist but the unfairness will be so obvious people won't accept it.
It's just not a simple problem.
I have already provided an answer and solution to this a couple of posts back.
You mean this, I guess:
If you own a TV or any mobile device capable of receiving/watching iPlayer then you require a TV licence.Fortunately there's no legal basis for charging people for owning goods legally purchased. And no legal basis for charging a "levy" for providing a service
[..]
Netflix et al or other similar services could be levied through their individual business model
Pollensa1946 - 16 hours ago »
Faust - 4 hours ago » ...My previous post and the part you quote was simply a one liner advising what the change needed to be.
Based on your posts here you should write a novel called "The world according to Faust". John Irving has some serious competition.
It comes from a lifetime working in Public/Private sector. People just love to complicate things that really aren't complicated, making it hard to see the wood from the trees.
Anyway, I am pretty optimistic we will have legislation in place with respect to iPlayer and the requirement for some form of licence in the not to distant future. 
I'm sure I read that the licence fee extension would cover ITV Player too. I guess that you will need a licence to watch the catch up players from UK broadcasters. Presumably Netflix and the like must charge VAT on their paid for services and the Treasury gets their cut from this.
I don't imagine that you will need to get a TV licence when you buy a laptop, tablet or phone, but will become liable if you use the service: it is easy for them to monitor who is downloading content and check the user's home address against the licence database.
MontysEvilTwin - 47 minutes ago »
I'm sure I read that the licence fee extension would cover ITV Player too. I guess that you will need a licence to watch the catch up players from UK broadcasters.
No clarification, as yet, on whether the new provisions will cover iPlayer alone or catchup in general.
Presumably Netflix and the like must charge VAT on their paid for services and the Treasury gets their cut from this.
I don't imagine that you will need to get a TV licence when you buy a laptop, tablet or phone,
...but will become liable if you use the service: it is easy for them to monitor who is downloading content and check the user's home address against the licence database.
JamesB - 3 weeks ago »
MontysEvilTwin - 47 minutes ago »
I'm sure I read that the licence fee extension would cover ITV Player too. I guess that you will need a licence to watch the catch up players from UK broadcasters.No clarification, as yet, on whether the new provisions will cover iPlayer alone or catchup in general.
Presumably Netflix and the like must charge VAT on their paid for services and the Treasury gets their cut from this.
The question is not about money for the Treasury, but funding for the BBC, and in particular how to extend the obligation to contribute to BBC funding to those watching IPTV. If UK viewers find that they have to contribute to the BBC if they watch UK catchup, but not if they stick to NetFlix or Sky catchup or Amazon Prime etc, that will hurt not only the BBC but also ITV, C4, Five, and perhaps UKTV. The broadcasters are likely to object to such an arrangement. Yet there's a lack of logic if viewers must contribute to BBC funding for any viewing when watching live TV, but only for iPlayer use when streaming. Not that lack of logic rules it out.
I must admit it didn't occur to me the PBS broadcasters might just go straight to the courts, as ITV is threatening to do.
It looks a little like the BBC is facing an impossible difficulty in trying to cling to licence-fee funding. If the other PBS broadcasters are going to refuse to go along with accepting the licence-fee requirement for all PBS streaming, it may not be long before they cease being willing to continue accepting the licence-fee requirement for live broadcasting.
This could perhaps all be solved, it seems to me, if the licence-fee income was distributed amongst all PBS broadcasters according to their share of PBS obligations. The BBC would obviously still get the lion's share, but there would be a defensible legal basis for the unequal distribution.
You must log in to post.
