BBC Considers Linking Online iPlayer TV Accounts to UK Home Addresses
The endlessly vexed question of TV licence fee evasion has come up in the press again after it was today reported that the BBC were considering a change to the iPlayer video streaming service. The change would essentially involve linking people’s online BBC accounts to their home addresses for the first time (i.e. to see if anybody is using the service without a licence).
At present the iPlayer service uses somewhat of a soft approach to licence fee verification, which involves a basic check-box exercise (i.e. merely asking if you’ve got a TV licence or not) and passive checks via the use of UK-registered IP addresses (geo-checking), user-provided postcodes, and account data. But it doesn’t really do much to enforce this, and hasn’t previously linked online accounts to full UK home addresses.
According to Sky News, the BBC are now working on ways to use iPlayer to find households that haven’t paid for a TV licence, such as by linking BBC online accounts to home addresses. A TV Licensing spokesperson said: “We always look at ways to improve how we collect the licence fee. This includes using the data available to us to get a better understanding of viewing habits and use of BBC services.”
Advertisement
The issue has never stopped being a hot topic, although it’s currently much more relevant as the government continue to debate the future of the BBC’s funding and more people turn to other streaming platforms. Not to mention the issue of how TV services will be delivered in the future.
The UK Government have already committed to the future of Digital Terrestrial TV (DTT) until 2034, which is in keeping with how some broadcasters have warned that existing DTT infrastructure is “unlikely to be commercially attractive after the mid-2030s“ (here); this is because they can’t afford to distribute their content both online and via traditional infrastructures like DTT with costs rising (i.e. the less time people spend on DTT, the less cost-effective per viewer it is).
In the future we may all end up getting our TV and video content via broadband connections, which has its pros and cons (here and here).
Mark is a professional technology writer, IT consultant and computer engineer from Dorset (England), he also founded ISPreview in 1999 and enjoys analysing the latest telecoms and broadband developments. Find me on X (Twitter), Mastodon, Facebook, BlueSky, Threads.net and Linkedin.
« Ofcom Examines Impact of AI on the Experience of UK Telecoms Customers
Advertisement
Leave a Reply
Privacy Notice: Please note that news comments are anonymous, which means that we do NOT require you to enter any real personal details to post a message and display names can be almost anything you like (provided they do not contain offensive language or impersonate a real person's legal name). By clicking to submit a post you agree to storing your entries for comment content, display name, IP and email in our database, for as long as the post remains live.
Only the submitted name and comment will be displayed in public, while the rest will be kept private (we will never share this outside of ISPreview, regardless of whether the data is real or fake). This comment system uses submitted IP, email and website address data to spot abuse and spammers. All data is transferred via an encrypted (https secure) session.
What’s stopping me from just putting in…any address? ♂️
Nothing and you might be lucky if the random address is paying license fee.
Your account is likely to be flagged at the reconcilliations stage if not early. It is one way to draw attention to yourself.
“Sorry – Our Geolocation Provider says that you are 50 miles away from your home address so we cannot allow you to watch IPlayer…”
But I’m at home… ¬_¬
But this will not work like that. They will check if the selected address is paying and if the IP traffic is originating from is UK based. They may want to blacklist known hosting and VPN IP ranges just to prevent you watching BBC World while you are holidaying abroad and you can’t or don’t know how to setup a VPN on your home router.
@Name, so what happens if you are watching Iplayer on your phone or maybe if you are on holiday somewhere? That is still perfectly legal.
Also, it is legal to watch S4C on iplayer without a licence
I will be cancelling TV License next week. Just had enough with BBC greedy pure.
How does this affect your usage?
Greed, why?
People pay Sky and others far more
How are the BBC being greedy? They want to check that people using their service have actually paid for it? Surely the greed is from the people who use it but don’t want to pay.
@Phil: Examples of the BBC’s supposed “greedy pure” [which I assume you mean pure greed]?
They’re absolutely convinced large numbers of people are watching the BBC without a licence. Delusional.
The article is a bit unclear though. Will they ask users for an address and then later run cross checks against the TV licence database or will they check the address has a licence before anything can be played?
I would be quite concerned about the former unless they are using proper KYC to verify the identity of the account holder. It could get someone into trouble when false names and addresses are inevitably used!
Currently, there are no details on how it will actually work, so we only have the general proposal.
@ Yatta It should be 0p a day if you don’t use any of its services. I don’t pay the Dail Mail or the Daily Mirror anything because I don’t read their rags. Similarly I don’t pay Sky anything because I don’t watch any of its output and I also don’t pay Ryanair anything because I choose never to fly with them. It’s sad you and other BBC fanboys find it difficult to understand why people should object to having to pay for services which they don’t use. It’s as ludicrous as forcing villagers who aren’t supplied with mains gas paying a separate annual fee to Cadent if they buy bottled gas from Calor.
@ john_r Apologies, I meant to reply to Yatta!’s comment further down.
Just abolish it. The BBC is just getting desperate at this point with the declining purchases of licenses and people moving to digital streaming platforms. It amazes me how they’re allowed to use all these scare tactics to begin with.
Don’t you think people should pay?
It seems the thing to criticise the BBC when all the others are just as bad. The media choose to concentrate on the BBC
Yes! People should pay, but that’s the point your are missing. The BBC want every household with a TV to pay, even those that don’t want ANY BBC, they still insist on a licence just for “Live TV” that can even include YouTube and Netflix.
I don’t watch it, I certainly don’t pay for it, even if I watch “Live TV” on other channels.
It should be subscription by this point, then people that want to use their propaganda service, can!
Yes, let cancel the TV licence, give-up the last cultural heavyweight soft power the UK has, have nothing but American toxic tripe and ITV gameshows, adverts every five minutes and truly partisan TV ‘news’ that’s owned by a few non dom billionaires.
I agree with Gareth, time to scrap the licence and go subscription, if the BBc is as popular as we are led to believe then they would not have any problem getting people to pay. If people don’t pay, then maybe it is not as popular as we are led to believe
@Yatta, the problem is the way they try to enforce it, with intimidating letters and threats of visits, they use scare tactics and sadly it works. If any other company used the same tactics as the BBc and Capita, they would be in court.
10 years or so since I have had a licence and I get letters trying to scare me into having one, and they are getting worse. There is no law to say I need a TV licence, unless I am watching live TV or Iplayer, there is no law to say I have to tell the TVL that I don’t need a licence and yet the letters try to make out I do need to tell them.
Because you did not contact us, we have no choice but to send one of our Goons over to try to intimidate you, not that they have, shame really, I am looking forward to telling them to go away and closing the door in their face.
I admit I use BBC sounds now and again and even have a peak on the BBC news site, also listen to radio 4 now and again, but there is no law to say I can’t.
@Ad47uk: “There’s no law” ad infinitum… The license fee costs households 48p per day, many are eligible to pay nothing, stop whinging.
@ Yatta It should be 0p a day if you don’t use any of its services. I don’t pay the Dail Mail or the Daily Mirror anything because I don’t read their rags. Similarly I don’t pay Sky anything because I don’t watch any of its output and I also don’t pay Ryanair anything because I choose never to fly with them. It’s sad you and other BBC fanboys find it difficult to understand why people should object to having to pay for services which they don’t use. It’s as ludicrous as forcing villagers who aren’t supplied with mains gas paying a separate annual fee to Cadent if they buy bottled gas from Calor.
@565Mbit/s: “you and other BBC fanboys” = Risible straw man claptrap wrapped in another whingeathon.
@John:
There is no justification at all for charging households a fee if they do not consume BBC content.
The current arrangement is akin to charging everyone with an internet connection a licence for access to The Guardian, even if they do not visit the website.
@Yatta! You are correct. I should have, of course, written “CBeebies fanboys”.
@Far2329Light @565Mbit/s
The taxes you pay will fund services you’ve never used, don’t want to use, and never will use.
Does that mean you shouldn’t pay for any of those services? Or maybe don’t pay any tax at all and it can be pay when you want it. If you can afford it that is.
Not too long before it all starts to fall apart is it.
@Darkstar:
The BBC is not an essential service. It is also not funded (in the main) from tax-payer funds.
TBH I’m surprised they didn’t do this years ago when they required an online account to access the iplayer.
Although I would go with the TV licence account as opposed to just the address.
Why not get Capita to issue a PIN with every TV licence which gives access to the sunlit uplands of iPlayer?
@Retired BBC employee, I thought that they could use the TV licence number, but S4C can be watched without a licence, so there have to be some way to watch that without a pin or number.
@Retired BBC employee
They already mandate an account for the iplayer, so there may not be any real benefit.
@Ad47uk
They could potentially just allow that content to be watched without linking or create a separate app.
@All:
They do not need any special arrangements, just a federated SSO user account configured with the appropriate access priviliges.
Surely all they need to do is require a TV license number to be entered for each account and then monitor the IP address being used.
Refuse access if more than one residential IP address is being used at the same time
2/ When it comes to mobile phone access limit it to a certain number of mobile phones per license at any one time.
3/ Prevent access via VPNs (which I think they already do).
All of this could be implemented very easily and quickly.
The crazy things is, if you watch live TV on your mobile and it’s not plugged into the mains, you can watch live TV without a TV licence.
> Refuse access if more than one residential IP address is being used at the same time
Tell me you know nothing, without telling me you know nothing.
@Joe Not true at all. The concession for a portable device not connected to the mains is that you are covered by your TV licence at your home address – but you still need a TV licence!
You’re probably getting confused by messaging aimed at students, who typically have two addresses classed as “home addresses” – a term-time address at the university, and their parents’ address where they live outside term. In this case, as long as they don’t connect their portable device to the mains, they can use their portable device whilst at uni (as long as their parents have a licence!) – at least in cases where their parents’ home is classed as a “home address”.
This is quite funny, as when they started forcing the accounts they said adamantly this was not for checking who was watching iPlayer from where.
Of course, everyone knew this was their real intent all along, just needed to wait a few years once everyone has an account and pull the bait and switch.
They have toyed with the idea of using “link” codes, perhaps when you renew or they send them through the post.
Obviously people are using iPlayer with VPNs and they knew this.
Even if the BBC went as far as making viewers add their licence number to their BBC account to gain iPlayer access, how would this be a problem for anyone? It’d be a one-off, 2-minute job for licence fee payers. And it would have no impact on the non licence fee payers, because they don’t even use iPlayer… right?
If you are watching the BBC just pay for it. You know the rules.
Decent people don’t advocate for using the BBC’s TV services (either live or on-demand) without paying for them. What is utterly unjustifiable is still being legally-required to possess a TV licence to view or record other broadcaster’s live / linear channels when no use is made of BBC services (the absolute horror that there are people who don’t watch BBC output in 2026!). Please do spare us that ridiculous inequivalence of “why should people without children pay taxes which fund education” or similar. Rightly or wrongly times have moved on from the 1950s when the BBC gained its first commercial rival and its funding arrangement needs to reflect the modern era if it is to survive.
Good, and the ‘I want everything and don’t want to pay for it’ brigade as usual shouting the loudest. You use a service then pay for it, it really is that simple.
I have no problem with people paying for the BBC if they use the BBC or at least watch BBC output. I do have a problem that people have to still legally pay for the BBC if they want to watch other channels live.
For me, it makes no difference, I can watch stuff from ITV, Channel 4 and 5 on catch up and don’t need a licence, but if I wanted to watch something live on say Channel 4, I can’t legally and yes I do follow the law, even if I don’t agree with it.
The TV licence is to fund the BBC, so it should only be paid if you watch the BBC and in this day and age, that would be easy to set up.
Should be subscription only at this point and FREE for the most venerable OAPS. Somebody watching say ITV live should NOT have to line the BBC’s pockets for their propaganda broadcast service.
Yes, because GB Snooze and Talkee TV have no agenda to push do they?
LOL
That would be funny if the BBC wasn’t doing things like editing President’s speeches and planting illegal migrants in the Question Time audience.
GB News & Co look tame compared to the BBC.
I’ve never watched GB News, although heard of their reputation, but I think impartiality is a bit of a fantasy anyway. You still have to curate the views that you will publish and generalist journalists rarely fully understand what they are writing about. The BBC proxy impartiality by what the main political parties are saying. That’s why if you look at any article on the BBC website about the OSA you’ll never see any views about how harmful it is. BBC news is not very trustworthy IMO because of this blindness to views not shared by any of the political elite (to give it a charitable interpretation).
If we can’t have objective news written by experts, which ironically we can only get on social media and small news sites like this, I prefer just to read news from outlets that make no bones about being biased. That’s why I have a subscription to The Economist which aligns with my liberal centrist world view. I used to have a subscription to The Times but I had to cancel after the articles became increasingly hysterical since the Labour government came to power.
@Gareth: “editing President’s speeches”: The edit wasn’t made by the BBC rather a third party production company, it should have been made clear, however it was ultimately inconsequential.
Trump did incite the riot, not only by the speech on the day, but everything he said and did from the evening of the the 3rd of November 2020 [the date of the election] where he falsely claimed he had “won” and “they stole it”, to the riot of the 6th of January 2021, which he did nothing to attempt to end for over two hours. Only after being threatened with the 24th Amendment by his own cabinet did he release that Twitter ‘hostage’ video [which also featured jump cuts], telling the rioters to “go home” and that “he loved them”, THREE HOURS after the riot began.
Trump’s incitement is directly attested by the testimonies made under oath of the majority of the rioters, during their arraignments and/or trials.
“planting illegal migrants in the Question Time audience”: Incorrect, there’s no evidence of “planting”, both men had been granted refugee status and were living in the UK legally at the time of the broadcast.
Note to moderator, this is the second time I have made this post, it is factual, easily confirmed and absolutely on topic of the thread and the existing allowed posts within it, thus should also be allowed if the moderation is impartial. Eight citations follow:
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us/he-invited-us-accused-capitol-rioters-blame-trump-in-novel-legal-defense-idUSKBN2A219A/
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/8/accused-rioters-blame-trump-for-inspiring-january-6-violence
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/13/capitol-riot-defendant-blames-trump-false-election-claims-jan-6-coat
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ohio-man-on-trial-for-involvement-in-jan-6-insurrection-blames-trump
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/i-trusted-the-president-and-that-was-a-big-mistake-jan-6-rioters-in-their-own-words/2929403/
https://abcnews.go.com/US/president-trump-dozen-capitol-rioters-trumps-guidance/story?id=75757601
https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/us/stephen-ayres-jan-6-capitol-rioter-b2122526.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/jan-6-rioters-believed-trump-storming-capitol-made-sense-rcna33125
Content of comment:
@Gareth: “editing President’s speeches”: The edit wasn’t made by the BBC rather the third party production company October Films, it should have been made clear, however it was ultimately inconsequential.
Trump did incite the riot, not only by the speech on the day, but everything he said and did from the evening of the the 3rd of November 2020 [the date of the election] where he falsely claimed he had “won” and “they stole it”, to the riot of the 6th of January 2021, which he did nothing to attempt to end for over two hours, initially with a Tweet for the rioters to “protest peacefully”.
Only after being threatened with the 24th Amendment by his own cabinet did he release that Twitter ‘hostage’ video [which also featured jump cuts], telling the rioters to “go home” and that “we love you”, THREE HOURS after the riot began.
Trump’s incitement is directly attested by the testimonies made under oath of the majority of the rioters, during their arraignments and/or trials.
“planting illegal migrants in the Question Time audience”: Incorrect, there’s no evidence of “planting”, both men had been granted refugee status and were living in the UK legally at the time of the broadcast.
Must be the only country to be in prison for not paying a TV licence but you can watch TV in prison without a licence.
In Portugal they bake the state propaganda channels in people’s electrical bills. No idea if criminals there have the insane leisures that they do in the UK though
People are struggling to buy food and housing yet all sorts of things that they don’t need are being imposed upon them. It’s insane when considering most channels are actually already sustainable with all the ad deals
Not a single person has been sent to prison for “not paying a TV licence”… I do believe the hardest penalty that can be given is a fine.
A prison sentence is given for failing to adhere to something ordered by a court such as paying a fine, which if you do you’re a fool.
@gary
“People are struggling to buy food and housing yet all sorts of things that they don’t need are being imposed upon them.”
People should probably prioritise then. If I was in the position between buying food and watching live television, I’d sell the TV.
Welcome back torrents I guess? You aren’t going to stop people from taking your stuff if you make it difficult or expensive. The music industry learnt that the hardway
Apparently, torrent usage which had dwindled is seeing a surge again what with Netflix, Spotify, most streaming services continuing to increase prices, it’s no wonder people are going back to the wild west.
Er how about no! And they can forget any dreams of forcing us to have TV licenses to watch You Tube too! Considering the BBC does NOT own 99.999% of the content on the platform which is funded through ads or subscriptions.
Just sheer greed from the bbc licensing, want to charge you for watching anything world wide live. Just turn it into a subscription based effort. Their biased reporting was clear yesterday afternoon when Braverman moved over to reform, everything else including more Americans being shot by immigration, starmer and Burnham being blocked, and the titanic pool still has water in it. Earlier in the week they were adding bbc content to you tube, so will eventually try to get all of you tube added to the license t’s and c’s. Just abolish it.
Bold of them to assume people who don’t pay the license fee are watching iPlayer illegally. There’s nothing on there worth watching.
That’s right. I like the way the article says that £550 million is lost because of ‘evasion’. They don’t get that money because people like myself refuse to pay it. I’m not ‘evading’ anything. There is enough material online to watch for hours on end, if you choose to spend your time that way.
We forget just how simple and successful DTT tellies are, and how inadequate and unsuitable nearly all smart TVs with apps have become.
With one, you turn on the TV, pick a channel, and watch it.
With the other, you turn it on, pray that the software doesn’t need updating, skip through the manufacturer’s interstitials, agree to the updated terms and conditions, find your app, find your channel, and … watch the buffering icon, or a helpful message “something went wrong, ring 0845 xxx xxxx (calls cost 20p minimum charge)”.
iPlayer is excellent on DTT, and not bad on most smart TVs, but if forced-online hell is the future of all licensed UK TV then we’ll be destroying so much value for little obvious benefit.
You do know iPlayer isn’t available on DTT as thats a broadcasting platform, so whilst you can watch BBC on DTT, you can’t get iPlayer.
And when you watch on a smart TV, you know that uses the internet too right? Your comments here seem to criticise content being online, when to watch any iPlayer content, you must be online.
I don’t know if anything will please the ant-brigade at this point. All they want to see is the end of The BBC, whom, if you look at the ratings, still get the majority of the viewers. So, to me this comes across as pure political ideology, which begs the question, who would benefit from the loss of The BBC?
In the end the BBC is just one of many entertainment service and unlike public services like say education or health there is no justification for making people pay for something they are not necessarily using.
I do have a TV licence because I have a Sky Sports subscription. That is the only reason. The BBC has not made anything for me in many years now so actually I do resent having to keep giving them money for literally nothing.
I get there are quite a few people who enjoy the BBC’s output and that is fine. But it’s selfish to expect others to subsidise your entertainment. Nobody would entertain the idea of giving me a tax payer subsidy on my Sky Sports subscription! The BBC should charge the people who consume their content the full cost and leave everybody else alone.
Some may want to see the end of the BBC, I am not bothered if it goes or stays.
My problem is the way things are with the licence and that people are intimidated with letters and threats of visits to pay for it even if they don’t need one.
Different times now when the licence started, we have more choice than ever, so why should people who have no interest in the BBC be forced to pay for it if they want to use other channels or services that have live TV on? We are also made to feel like we are in the wrong for not wanting to pay for the BBC.
It needs to change and the best ways is either get their money from adverts or subscription. If they want to keep the licence, then fine, but stop the intimidating letters and scare tactics by their goons.
You can imagine what jubilant glee BBC consumer rights programmes would have reporting on any other UK organisation which persistently harassed and intimidated innocent people like TV Licensing does.
There is nothing wrong with individuals choosing to subscribe to BBC products, however there is no justification for the BBC receiving funds from the public even if they do not consume any of its product.
I would also add that attacking the critics of the current funding regime for the BBC is a common characteristic of the left-wing activists who have subverted the BBC over several decades.
Freeview should be renamed to Paidview and encoded. Who wants to watch it should paid for it. IPlayer should have subscription fee. Different tiers with/without adds, paid monthly or annually. It is important to separate the DTT fee from the IPlayer fee as this will tell how many viewers wants to pay for the terrestrial broadcasting. If not enough, shut it down. This is simple to implement.
What a stupid idea, why not just use the tv licence numeric ID instead?
The BBC have had the ability to make users pay directly for years as most TVs and Satellite boxes have CAM slots that allow encryption along with simply linking iPlayer to an active licence.
They’re happy with the current nebulous setup that allows them raise funds as quasi-tax even from non-users. They are also able to label people that opt out as evaders when it’s highly likely most aren’t even interested.
If people wish to consume the dross they call content so be it but move to straightforward subscription model then let the BBC sink or swim.
Cam slots went out a few years ago, most sets don’t have them now, in fact, I have not seen them on any modern set I have seen.
Not worth putting into TVs if they are not going to be used, just more costs.
when Freeview came along, the BBC made sure that no new boxes had card slots, to stop subscription happening.
Even so, it is possible to have an external box to decrypt.
The BBc as far as i can work out want to keep the licence, they don’t want a levy put onto income or council tax, because it means they are not independent. They don’t want adverts, they say it will reduce advertising for ITV and other channels, myself, I think they are just scared.
The don’t want subscription either, I presume because they know that many people would not pay for it. So they want something that they can use scare tactics with and that is the licence
I don’t think much will change.
At the end of the day, if 3.8 billion pounds is not enough, then the BBC need to reduce costs.
The DVB Common Interface (DVB-CI) specification is actually part of the DVB standard.
Also, both our Sony and Samsung TVs have the ability to utilise CAMs with the former being about 24 months old so don’t agree that they went out a ‘few years ago’
My brother has a Freesat box and it definitely has an available CAM slot too..
I think I have watched precisely one programme using my BBC iPlayer account, which I created to watch one of the Attenborough programmes in 4k. Most of my ‘iPlayer’ usage is via my Sky+HD on-demand feature.
I detest the BBC and it’s coercive scumbaggery.
I used to fill the form in to say we don’t need a licence (because we don’t–zero live TV; no iPlayer; absolutely no accounts with the BBC) until they started threatening us and claiming someone at our address was watching on iPlayer.
Pure, 100% horse twaddle.
After much fighting with BBCV Licensing and telling them I’m more than happy to assist with their investigation, and clearly telling them it’s impossible to be us, they tried to get me to deal with their contractors who provide them with the naughty list.
So, it’s YOUR fault if THEIR garbage contractors accuse you of something you’re perfectly innocent of.
And no, they won’t tell e Which IP or email address is apparently using their services, but they’ll threaten you.
That was it. Told them I will no longer participate in their scummy mafia scheme.
They’re welcome to take me to court. I’d love to know whose responsible for using our address. I assume it’s someone who previously lived here.
The system in place is warped.
The sooner the licence is scrapped the better. Unfortunately the likelihood is that we’ll all just end up funding it in tax instead.
But I have zero respect left for the BBC, and celebrate anyone refusing to participate in this scumbaggery.
I understood its a license to use a television, in the older days there was one required for a radio. Now i believe the license money goes to the BBC only, has that changed?
In France, buy a tv, and you have to provide name and address to the seller, even if its second hand, and you only want to use it to watch dvd’s etc.
Then when you get your tax return, you have to declare you do not have a television. If you do, you can be guaranteed the tv police will arrive.