[speedwell68]

It's just a nag box asking you if you have a licence or not.

[primaeval]

Its not just me that thinks that students having to pay full price is unfair.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37219451

[speedwell68]

Its not just me that thinks that students having to pay full price is unfair.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37219451

What I find unfair is that people that only access the BBC online have to pay the full price. Online only viewers don't get the same shows that traditional viewers do as the BBC aren't licensed to show that content online. I get why the license is charged for in the traditional format, it is licensing someone to operate a broadcast receiver. But this is not the case with the iPlayer, the iPlayer is now technically a subscription service, a second rate one at that. For the kind of money the BBC want I could get Netflix and Amazon for a year.

[primaeval]

Its not just me that thinks that students having to pay full price is unfair.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37219451

What I find unfair is that people that only access the BBC online have to pay the full price. Online only viewers don't get the same shows that traditional viewers do as the BBC aren't licensed to show that content online. I get why the license is charged for in the traditional format, it is licensing someone to operate a broadcast receiver. But this is not the case with the iPlayer, the iPlayer is now technically a subscription service, a second rate one at that. For the kind of money the BBC want I could get Netflix and Amazon for a year.

That's true. There are lots of movies that come up with "Can't show this on the iplayer platform. Watch it on your TV" on the iplayer live streams.

[primaeval]

I can't believe what I have just read on the BBC website. This is bonkers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37243332

If you only use iPlayer to listen to the radio, watch S4C TV on demand, or watch films or TV shows you have bought from the BBC Store, then you do not need a TV licence.
...
In certain circumstances, students may be covered by their parents' TV licence. TV Licensing says four conditions need to apply:

The student only ever uses a device that is powered by its internal batteries (e.g. a laptop, mobile phone or tablet device) to watch live TV or watch and download programmes on iPlayer
They have not connected it to an aerial or plugged it into the mains
Their permanent address (outside term time) is their parents' home
Their parents have a valid TV licence

So if you plug your device in to charge it while you are watching live TV, or catch-up or on-demand programmes on iPlayer, then you need a TV licence.

So if you can find a big enough battery pack for your TV you don't need a TV licence. Better go talk to Elon Musk.

[DarrenHill]

That's always been the case (irrespective of iPlayer). If the TV is a true "portable" (not tethered to anything, either an aerial or power) then it can go under the permanent home license. But as soon as it's tethered, it becomes part of the location where it is in terms of licenses.

When I was at uni (20 or so years ago) I used to have a little battery powered pocket TV with a built-in aerial (it looked like a large pocket radio with a small screen) which I didn't need a license for due to this. However when I got fed up with it and bought myself a proper TV I had to get a license too as my parents home one no longer covered it.

[primaeval]

That's always been the case (irrespective of iPlayer). If the TV is a true "portable" (not tethered to anything, either an aerial or power) then it can go under the permanent home license. But as soon as it's tethered, it becomes part of the location where it is in terms of licenses.

When I was at uni (20 or so years ago) I used to have a little battery powered pocket TV with a built-in aerial (it looked like a large pocket radio with a small screen) which I didn't need a license for due to this. However when I got fed up with it and bought myself a proper TV I had to get a license too as my parents home one no longer covered it.

I hope you didn't watch it while it was charging.
That is the crazy part of the law I think is bonkers.

[primaeval]

Here is an in-depth article about how the BBC are implementing or rather not really implementing the License Check.
https://torrentfreak.com/new-bbc-iplayer...pn-160901/

[spudbynight]

I've been wondering the following :

Person A has a TV licence.
Person B does not have a TV licence.

If person A watches iPlayer on their mobile phone at Person B's home are they covered?
If person B watches iPlayer on their mobile phone at Person A's home are they covered?

[DarrenHill]

A is covered, presuming that the phone isn't plugged into a charger at B's house. As long as the device (the phone) is entirely self-contained then it's covered by the home license. So the key question is whether A is using 4G (for example) or B's wifi, as I can see the "connected" part quickly getting extended from physical connection (power and Ethernet cables) to include any connection to the local infrastructure (e.g. a wifi connection or a contactless charging set-up).

B technically isn't, although it would be interesting to see how that would be detected and enforced (how they would tell that B is using the device rather than A).

[spudbynight]

That was kind of my thinking. What happens then to the likes of Starbucks. Do they require a TV licence at each coffee shop in case someone watches iPlayer on a mobile device?

The whole business just seems to be full of holes and incredibly unworkable.

[DarrenHill]

It wouldn't be Starbuck's problem, as they wouldn't be the one violating the rules, it would be the customer's case to answer. It will be interesting to see a case for defining exactly what connectivity to local infrastructure would actually be.

But I don't disagree at all that the whole thing is full of holes and unenforceable in this way. It would need linking devices (presumably MAC addresses or something like that) to the license to be even vaguely sensible, and that of course isn't exactly difficult to spoof anyway.

[spudbynight]

You say it wouldn't be Starbucks's problem, but what about the detector van outside sniffing packets?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/06/...i_iplayer/

[DarrenHill]

Starbucks are essentially the ISP, not the consumer. Worst case they'd just need to stick a notice up somewhere (on the wall or on the wifi sign-in page). In any case I'd be rather dubious about that capability anyway - to quote your article:

As our analysis suggested, the Telegraph's article about the BBC sniffing Wi-Fi is complete bollocks:

Statement in response to reports about TV Licensing and watching BBC iPlayer pic.twitter.com/yMHNBUgROs
— BBC Press Office (@bbcpress) August 7, 2016

.

[stuCONNERS]

I had someone from Capita at the door on the 1st Sept trying to sell me a TV licence. Asking why she was there seeing as Capitas rights of access had been removed. Soon as I pulled my phone out she run up the street like an egg on legs. Ive repeatdly told Capita that I dont fund paedos, But its not sinking in. Ive kept all the letters, and photos When she returns again which she will, Im ringing the police as its classed as tresspassing. I spoke to Capita on the phone and they tried everything to get my information. The man on the phone decided to hang up when I asked him if played with himself whilst looking at pictures of his heroes, Jimmy Savile, Jonathan King, Stuart Hall, and the great Rolf Harris. (The song two little boys was an early warning sign, God knows what he did to those poor animals during BBCs Anmal Hospital, Come on kids, Join my kids club!!!!!)