To think that people should have to pay to licence if they want to watch BBCi player.

[PiperIsOrangePumpkins]

people who,pay to licence are funding the programmes to be made. I don't think that people who don't watch live TV should be able to watch the same programme sometimes just hours after for free.

It cost to run the BBCi player so should people who want to watch BBCi programmes on iplayer have to buy a to licence.

Eh, I don't have a TV license because my flat doesn't have an aerial connection, so I would mightily resent having to pay £145 to use a shitty catch-up service that is often slow and doesn't always work.

I'm in Canada and I use the iPlayer. I have a VPN, as suggested above. It apparently fools the BBC server into thinking our computer is in the UK.

It's easy to watch iPlayer from overseas through a VPN. We do it everyday. But those doing so are unable to pay for a tv licence without a UK address to register it to. I agree with you and would happily pay for the BBC but I don't think I can because I don't live in the UK.

I don't live in the UK but use the bbc i-player with a vpn. I only use it very occasionally though for things I have missed.

I also get bbc1, bbc2, bbc3, bbc4, bbc world and bbc news as part of my cable tv. I obviously don't pay a tv license, but I assume my cable provider must pay the bbc to be able to "use" their channels. Ans yes it does seem weird that I get for free (well as part of my cable bundle) the exact same programs at the exact same time, that my family has to pay 150gbp for.

I paid my TV licence for a year after I got rid of my sky subscription and only watched catch up TV and netflix. I only realised when I went to renew it that I actually don't have to pay it so I'd wasted £145 in effect.

I don't really watch much on bbc iplayer, only strictly come dancing and that's on for what? Eight weeks of the year. So I'd be paying £145 to watch an hour and half of TV once a week for about two months. How is that fair? How is it fair actually that people pay their licence and NEVER watch the beeb full stop? I always thought that.

Yabu

The VPN is the thing that's accessing iPlayer - that's in the UK, you're accessing the VPN from overseas. It's not fooling the BBC servers, it is in the UK when the access happens.

The original intention when iPlayer was being developed (back when it was called iMP!) was that you would have to register to use it, including providing your tv licence number.

YANBU. We have a TV license, but rarely watch TV usually picking it up later from iPlayer. I wouldn't feel right doing that if I hadn't paid for my license.

Conversely, I do not watch a single thing on bbc, ever. Never, ever, ever. But I still have to pay a license fee. I disagree with it totally. But hey, I'm scottish and the license fee is in general a big bone of contention in my necks of the woods for obvious reasons.

YANBU. I don't watch 'live' TV and don't pay the licence. But I think this is wrong!

DB does not pay a licence fee but he very rarely uses iplayer or any of the TV things. Just films and streaming from the internet. But I can't argue that people who watch mostly tv program's online including itv and channel 4 should pay something, but £145 is ridiculous for low paid workers.

Lived without a tv for 3 yrs and paid the licence fee the whole time on the grounds that I accessed the BBC website and iplayer all the time. Good value for money imo and not worth the hassle to have an inspector turning up.
Odd that you don't get a licence fee reference/subscription number to allow you to log into iPlayer. Non licence fee or overseas viewers could simply pay per view or pay a smaller annual subscription.

the law has not kept up with the tech. The system suggested by treadsoftly is a great idea. Far too simple though, needs years of expensive consultancy

we all moan about the BBC, especially the stupid reality crap of screechy low-rent dancing and cake-baking (what is WRONG with everyone?) But there's BBC2 and BBC4, and some good stuff on BBC1, and while there are too many trailers and Children In Need, there are no actual ads. Until you live abroad or have to watch ITV without a recorder box to go through the ads, you don't appreciate what we have.

we all moan about the BBC, especially the stupid reality crap of screechy low-rent dancing and cake-baking (what is WRONG with everyone?) But there's BBC2 and BBC4, and some good stuff on BBC1, and while there are too many trailers and Children In Need, there are no actual ads. Until you live abroad or have to watch ITV without a recorder box to go through the ads, you don't appreciate what we have.

So true. BBC may not be perfect, but having lived in a few different countries, nowhere else even comes close to the beeb. I would be lost without BBC. No ads, overall decent (watchable) programs, and good news too. Imagine being reliant on something like Fox News to keep you informed of what's happening in the world? Perish the very thought!

I don't think you're being unreasonable, necessarily, but I do think they probably know what they're doing by not insisting on one.

I wouldn't buy a TV license if I had to have one to watch IPlayer on catch up. I'd just watch less stuff.

I do think it's annoying that people claim it's 'not right' or 'not fair' to watch Iplayer for free, though. It's yet another of those 'oooh, some people have less ready money than me, how can I make them feel really guilty?!' tricks, I think.

If your argument is that the VPN is accessing the BBC then presumably people in the UK are not accessing the BBC either but their ISP is...

I don't think anyone is reliant on Fox news, there are plenty of alternatives...

YANBU and I say that as someone who doesn't have a TV (therefore no licence) but I enjoy and am grateful for some of the quality programming available on iPlayer.

I feel slightly uncomfortable knowing I'm not contributing, but equally I can't afford the licence at the moment and don't think it would be fair for me to pay the full £145 given that I watch a total of around 4 hours of iPlayer a week and as a PP mentioned the delivery of those programmes is often sketchy (stop-start, having to reload etc.).

I think it would be fair for iPlayer-only users to pay a reduced fee of say £50 so that we're making some contribution.

I don't think anyone is reliant on Fox news, there are plenty of alternatives...

let me rephrase that in case anyone thinks I'm unaware of alternatives to fox news.

I like to sit down once a day in front of the telly for half an hour or so and catch up with world news. Nowhere I have ever lived or visited does this anywhere near as well as the BBC does. Plus the rest of the BBC is pretty good too, certainly compared to channels in other countries.

As much as I love the states, the news there is abysmal. I know no alternative to the BBC, in terms of quality news, absence of adverts and reasonable programs. I always thought commercial tv would mean better tv as they have bigger budgets, boy was I wrong!

i dont think its about 'people with less money' its more about not everyone contributing the same amount

I do have a TV licence, which i dont mind - but i rarely watch iPlayer as i find it very slow to download (30mins+), cannot resize the screen, and cannot have it 'always on top' - so i end up downloading the odd episode of eastenders via another place (in less than 90 seconds), and watch it that way on the player of my choice.

Whats the obvious reason ? "But hey, I'm scottish and the license fee is in general a big bone of contention in my necks of the woods for obvious reasons."

"I feel slightly uncomfortable knowing I'm not contributing, but equally I can't afford the licence at the moment and don't think it would be fair for me to pay the full 145 given that I watch a total of around 4 hours of iPlayer a week and as a PP mentioned the delivery of those programmes is often sketchy (stop-start, having to reload etc.)."

I dont think you can equate a time period with how much you should pay.... I think those on benefits should get a reduced rate, maybe....

But you don't get the same stuff, so why would everyone contribute the same thing? I do think it is about people with less money - deciding you can't afford a TV license is reasonable enough.

But could it be equated to the quality of delivery?

If I had a TV I would be 100% happy to pay the full licence fee as I think it's good value.

The value you get from iPlayer isn't as much as TV because you have to wait for programmes to appear and often the streaming is then bad quality.

I'd quite like a system where you pay for what you watch. It's not realistic as the pricing structure would be so complicated to allow for different programme durations etc. But I would quite happily pay £2 to watch a film on iPlayer or 50p for a half-hour programme for example. It's not a viable idea at all so I don't know why I've mentioned it - thinking out loud!

I can't afford the licence at the moment and don't think it would be fair for me to pay the full £145 given that I watch a total of around 4 hours of iPlayer a week

This is me, too. I'd be happy if there was a £50 annual fee but would have to just do without the beeb if I needed to fork out £3 a week for it. It's not that I don't watch TV for lofty reasons - I'd watch a lot more if I had a licence! It's just one of the endless not-completely-essentials I have to to do without.

Your point's perfectly fair, Scarlet. It's just an economic choice for me.