Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BBC Begins Blocking VPN Access To iPlayer (torrentfreak.com)

Posted by timothy on from the repurposed-the-cat-detector-vans dept.

nickweller points out Ars Technica's report (based on news initially on Torrent Freak) that The BBC has begun to block VPN users from its iPlayer video streaming service. From the article: Naturally, VPN providers are already working on a fix for the block, with IPVanish already claiming it has found a way around it. Earlier this year, a GlobalWebIndex report claimed that up to 60 million people outside the UK had been accessing iPlayer. The BBC disputes this figure however, saying: "These figures simply aren’t plausible. All our evidence shows the vast majority of BBC iPlayer usage is in the UK. BBC iPlayer and the content on it is paid for by UK licence fee payers in the UK and we take appropriate steps to protect access to this content."

174 comments

  1. iPlayer?? by Kisame217 · · Score: 0

    Apple??

    1. Re:iPlayer?? by sound+vision · · Score: 2

      BBC.

  2. Maybe a better way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "BBC iPlayer and the content on it is paid for by UK licence fee payers in the UK and we take appropriate steps to protect access to this content."
    That's all well and good, but what about UK licence fee payers who are temporarily outside the UK? Shouldn't they still be able to access the content they are, after all, still paying for? Perhaps a more thoughtful process based on a log in, rather than just a blanket geo-block, might be a better solution.

    1. Re:Maybe a better way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "All our evidence shows the vast majority of BBC iPlayer usage is in the UK."

      Isn't that the whole point of using a VPN?

    2. Re:Maybe a better way? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm outside the UK but I pay for the BBC. Not through the licence fee, but (I presume) they don't give it to my cable provider for nothing.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Maybe a better way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you speaking of BBC America?

    4. Re:Maybe a better way? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Is that one of those spinoffs with adverts? Anyway, no. I get BBC1 & 2, exactly as in the UK, except with the time wrong.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:Maybe a better way? by beelsebob · · Score: 3, Informative

      BBC America is not the same as the BBC.

    6. Re:Maybe a better way? by Nirvelli · · Score: 1

      Not just adverts. They even change out the music on shows like Top Gear because of licensing issues. It's terrible.

    7. Re: Maybe a better way? by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Cablelink in Dublin (then ntl, not sure what it's called now - possibly UPC) had BBC proper. I was never sure how that worked as surely that would break licencing.

    8. Re:Maybe a better way? by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Then you can receive that part of the BBC for which you pay through your cable provider.

      In the UK we pay 145.50 GBP per year for the BBC. Thats about $225. Your cable provider won't be paying that on your behalf for the BBC World channel.

    9. Re:Maybe a better way? by hjf · · Score: 1

      I've seen a lot of brits whine for that. I guess they've never seen TV outside UK. I'd gladly pay that money. BBC content is just fantastic, way superior to the ad-supported bullshit you get everywhere else.

    10. Re:Maybe a better way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe just let everyone watch? BBC's primary role isn't turning a profit. It might not be explicit but the BBC is recognized as highly effective soft-diplomacy. You are never going to get the whole world to pay licensing fees but you the more people who watch the more valuable your investment is.

    11. Re:Maybe a better way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said anything about World Channel?

    12. Re:Maybe a better way? by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've seen a lot of brits whine for that. I guess they've never seen TV outside UK. I'd gladly pay that money. BBC content is just fantastic, way superior to the ad-supported bullshit you get everywhere else.

      Well, there are three models for funding TV, each with its pros and cons.

      You have ad-supported networks, where advertising pays for the programming. I'll lump in cable networks as part of the same. Here, the pro is that the end user pays nothing, while the con is the networks produce content to gather the most eyeballs. For a lot of the time, this means serving the lowest common denominator. The other con is that the network will not run content that potentially antagonizes an advertiser, for they represent dollars.

      You have subscriber funded networks, where subscribers pay for the content, which include networks like HBO, Netflix and even Amazon Prime. The pro here is the content tends to be better because the only way to make money is to attract subscribers, so they will produce programming that attracts new subscribers. They use lots of analytics to find out who are the ones likely to subscribe, then produce programming that will attract them. The con is, well, you have to pay money, and if you fall out of the desired subscriber demographic, then the programming is less and less interesting to you. The other con is well, they will not produce content that may be potentially controversial because they don't want half their subscriber base leaving.

      The third model is state-level funding. The pro here is the ability to produce any kind of content (in free countries) - you can stir controversy, anger advertisers and other groups provided you tell the truth (e.g., pro-consumer advocacy shows). You can also take risks and produce more specialized programming. The cons include, well, people complain about their tax dollars being mis-spent, especially if the programming is contrary to their beliefs. The other con is, well, in less free country, it's an ideal propaganda source.

      There's no ideal form of funding for TV, they all have their pros and cons.

    13. Re:Maybe a better way? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Exactly, provide a login when you send the tv licence paperwork... Anyone who has a valid tv license also has a login, and can use it from anywhere. You could then allow foreign subscription too, after all why shouldn't someone outside the uk be able to watch bbc content if they're paying the same fee as anyone else?

      Many brits live abroad, and often still want to watch bbc content but there is often no legal way for them to do so.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    14. Re:Maybe a better way? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Most of the subscriber funded tv networks also show advertisements... I don't like the idea of paying twice for the same thing.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    15. Re: Maybe a better way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the bbc is not state funded (I presume that was your implication). Its more similar to a subscription. The license fee does not go into the governments melting pot of taxes and then a proportion given to the BBC. The whole of the license fee goes to the BBC (and a few others including channel 4). The biggest con I see is the continual interference from the government in how the BBC should be managed and constant critisism from them if the BBC doesn't meet the requirements of the government (now with a torry government they don't think its right for the BBC to 'compete').

    16. Re:Maybe a better way? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Hognoxious didn't say he was American - nice assumption though. Many cable TV providers around the world provide subscription access to the UK BBC channels. I live in Switzerland and get BBC+ITV through my cable subscription.

    17. Re: Maybe a better way? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Indeed the way the Tory government is putting the pressure on the BBC to be more right wing is appalling. The Labour government also interfered, although in their case the worst example was simply a criticism of populist programming, in particular "Fame Academy".

    18. Re:Maybe a better way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're out of the country you don't need to pay the License fee.

    19. Re: Maybe a better way? by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      What are some of the right wing shows on the BBC?

    20. Re:Maybe a better way? by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      The question really is as to why anyone cares that deeply about the content. The answer is pretension.

    21. Re: Maybe a better way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The news.

  3. Don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    BBC news might as well be written/performed by Guardian staff, for all its objectiveness, and the only entertaining show they had was Top Gear, which got repetitive after I don't know how many years. The rest of the shows all appear to be the product of some racial grievance mongering agenda; the bad guys are exclusively white and all the cops that matter are minorities.

    You can keep your statist propaganda. Time spend watching and listening to it is damaging so locking it down is a net benefit to the species.

    1. Re: Don't care by negRo_slim · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One would think they would like to spread their culture and/or propaganda to as wide an audience as possible. I don't understand the desire to lock down their content.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    2. Re: Don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must really hate the Queen.

    3. Re: Don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They need to get paid. If they don't collect the UK's mandated license fee^H^H^H television tax for all viewers, they lose a big chunk of their income. And the sports teams, especially, charge premiums for live content. And easy access for numerous downloaders allows them to organize the content into something that *actually makes sense* instead of the completely crap BBC program scheduling and interface. *No one cares* when the 12 different showings of Doctor Who happened in your particular county and wants to spend 5 minutes drilling down to find them, they just want to see the latest episode, which Iplayer refuses to allow direct access to.

      Frankly, that's what makes Bittorrent such a useful tool compared to IPlayer. Let someone else organize the episodes of Downton Abbey or the 47 other chickflick BBC shows, organize them into something useful, and *strip* the excessive Iplayer advertising!

    4. Re: Don't care by pjt33 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The reason they've always given is that some of the stuff they broadcast is third party content for which they've only bought the rights to distribute within the UK. Apparently it's too much effort to set up a system whereby they classify content as "OK to distribute worldwide" vs "UK-only" and allow foreigners and ex-pats to watch the former category.

    5. Re: Don't care by Barsteward · · Score: 2

      you should check your facts, Downton Abbey is not on the BBC

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    6. Re: Don't care by Barsteward · · Score: 2

      its probably the 3rd party that already has the rights sorted in those other countries and have a revenue stream from them, its probably more profitable for the 3rd party to have separate licences.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    7. Re: Don't care by mindmaster064 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What they don't get is people watch programming through the VPN because they have other way to get it.... If they spent half as much of this effort by negotiating with Netflix or Hulu for US customers to get these shows streamed we wouldn't care about VPNing them through iPlayer and still "paying for them..." It's just the typical ass-backwards corporate thinking at work.

    8. Re: Don't care by Afty0r · · Score: 1

      Money. They want more money.

    9. Re: Don't care by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Ding! Downtown Abbey was an ITV (UK) and PBS (USA) show.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    10. Re: Don't care by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      In some cases that's true but the real reason is domestic politics. Here in Oz we have the ABC/SBS which is modelled on the BBC and is almost as old as the BBC. We used to have TV/Radio licenses when I was a kid in the 60's but we dumped them decades ago, it's an antiquated system based on the idea that TV/Radio's are a luxury item. People who pay license fees believe they own something and don't think others should get it for free (UK), people who pay for the same thing via taxes may object to doing so but do not care if others use it (AU).

      As with the UK, the ABC/SBS is set up and run as an independent statutory body and is by far the most trusted news outlet in the country, this is despite recent attacks on its integrity from Murdoch's newspapers and his pet politicians. That tactic doesn't work very well with Aussie voters because most Aussies have seen the ABC attacked as biased by ALL sides of politics, its track record over the decades has earned our trust, we value its existance much more than the politicians who determine its budget.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    11. Re: Don't care by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      Money grabs which don't have to exist encourage piracy, so that's dumb.

    12. Re: Don't care by grahammm · · Score: 1

      How does people accessing from outside the UK have any affect on how much the BBC is paid? They receive the same income from the TV licence payers whether or not people access iPlayer via a VPN.

    13. Re: Don't care by cardpuncher · · Score: 1
      It's a bit more subtle than that. The BBC is obliged to have more than 50% (I forget the exact figure) of its programming made by third parties. This was done because of agitation against the "monopoly" status of the BBC when most of its programming was made in house and was supposed to encourage the development of a lively creative sector which would boost the British economy by selling its content abroad. And there was, briefly, an explosion of independent production companies. mostly founded by people who walked away from the BBC with contracts to make the programmes the BBC would otherwise have made itself, likely with the same people. A lot of those companies were then sold to international media conglomerates.

      So, the BBC is basically now in a position where it is taking money off the UK licence payer and giving it to multinational commecial enterprises to make programmes for which it only has the UK rights. Where the BBC has been making and exporting its own formats (eg. Strictly Come Dancing / Dancing with the Stars) it has been criticised by conservative politicians for being too populist and unfairly competing with commercial broadcasters for "their" audience.

      It does appear that there is a political determination to turn the BBC into something like PBS - domestically-produced dull, worthy, talking-head programmes with a few higher-budget internationally-produced dramas interspersed with desperate appeals for money.

    14. Re: Don't care by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      piracy will happen regardless

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    15. Re: Don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty hard for the BBC to sell something abroad if they also let those people see it for free.

    16. Re:Don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .... and the only entertaining show they had was Top Gear ....

      Not even Doctor Who? Andf if you're speaking in past tense what about ther zillion extraordinarily funny comedies from the 70s to 90s?

    17. Re: Don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The BBC Charter is up for renewal in the very near future and the Tories have an ideological hatred of the BBC (presumably because it's "giving things" to "poor people"), hence they will hold the collective toes of the BBC to the fire in order to extract "value" (i.e. money); the cost of TV licenses for older people (75+ ? Not sure) *was* paid by central government; the BBC now fund that on or they would have had concessions enforced on them elsewhere. With that in mind, overseas access to iPlayer will require a subscription at some point, solely because they need to show the Tories that they're making money. The BBC *are* remarkably unbiased (as mentioned previously, any two-sided altercation will usually attract criticism about the reporting from *both* sides; see Palestine vs Israel ad infinitum for one ongoing example) and as such routinely get shot by both sides. They *have* expanded too much and, like the proper public sector, have a serious problem with incompetent managers who are more concerned with tickboxes than actually getting something done *right*; also like the public sector those same managers have a culture of bullying and blaming the lowest paid in any dispute. But given the choice between the BBC or, for example, any of the commercial broadcasters in the UK (or, god forbid, US commercial TV), there is no contest: the BBC are far, far better in producing content with a) little in the way of brown-nosing external sponsors and b) no bloody adverts.

    18. Re: Don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They need to get paid."

      The problem is: Its easier to subscribe to a VPN service and "permanently" solve the problem than to jump through several hoops to make sure BBC gets paid. I didn't even know there was an option to pay! There is no "pay now" option when iPlayer says: "We're sorry, you're from a foreign country. Go away!"

    19. Re:Don't care by Maritz · · Score: 1

      What a big pile of bollocks that was, little Englander. I suspect you see race everywhere you look, on account of how weasley and embittered you are. Keep voting Farage mate, you'll get rid of all those brown-skinned people some day.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  4. iPlayer is for sheeps. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mehhhhhh.....

    1. Re: iPlayer is for sheeps. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Baaaa you sheep

    2. Re: iPlayer is for sheeps. by Panoptes · · Score: 1

      "Baaaa you sheep"

      Obviously, just sheeps that pass in the night.

  5. Ineffective retards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't seem to be very effective, I'm watching Doctor Who through the iPlayer right now from the US

    1. Re:Ineffective retards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't seem to be very effective, I'm watching Doctor Who through the iPlayer right now from the US

      I just tried it and it's blocked for me. Who's your VPN provider? Mine's VyprVPN.

    2. Re:Ineffective retards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a trap!

  6. BBC blocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    your wife's orifices every time you're at work

  7. Just Sell It World Wide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Dump the licence fee, switch to subscription, sell BBC programming to anyone in the world who wants it, stop forcing people in the UK who don't want it to pay for it.

    The BBC are adamant that they make the highest quality programmes in the world, so I'm sure they'll have no problem finding new subscribers to make up for lost licence revenue.

    1. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by myowntrueself · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dump the licence fee, switch to subscription, sell BBC programming to anyone in the world who wants it, stop forcing people in the UK who don't want it to pay for it.

      The BBC are adamant that they make the highest quality programmes in the world, so I'm sure they'll have no problem finding new subscribers to make up for lost licence revenue.

      Yeah they should load up their websites and apps with ads instead!

      What could possibly go wrong...

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    2. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by zippthorne · · Score: 0

      They don't need ads; They could just sell subscriptions as was suggested by the AC.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    3. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The entire point of the license fee is that because everyone with a TV has to pay it (no matter their political affiliation), the BBC can be relatively unbiased in their reporting. The second you attach advertising or a subscription to it, they end up biased.

    4. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The BBC is already exceptionally biased without advertising. Any claim to the contrary is absurd.

    5. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      But couldn't they make their program available outside the UK for a small fee and still not give a fuck about their non-UK viewers?

      That way, it would be a win-win.

    6. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yet still by a massive margin the least biased major news broadcaster in the English-speaking world.

    7. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Informative

      No - because then you have viewers choosing to pay or not pay the BBC. As soon as someone can make that choice, the BBC has to bias their broadcasting towards keeping that person paying, in order to keep their funding high. The whole point of the license fee is to avoid that situation.

    8. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by Khyber · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I think that would be Al Jazeera as the least biased.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    9. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      They don't need ads; They could just sell subscriptions as was suggested by the AC.

      But ads would fit the pattern!

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    10. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Well rather less so since they sacked Jeremy Clarkson.

    11. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by lgw · · Score: 1

      What part of "subscription" sounded like "advertising" to you? They should charge the same 145/year fee as the tax, to anyone worldwide who wants to pay. Bit more than Netflix, but perhaps better content.

      And don't kid yourself that the BBC is unbiased - they're biased in the way they choose to be, which is different.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by beelsebob · · Score: 2

      The "anyone who wants to pay" part is the problem. As soon as people can choose whether to pay or not (be they subscribers or advertisers), the BBC has to start tailoring their product to match the people making the choice to pay or not. As soon as that happens they have motivation to bias their reporting.

    13. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by peragrin · · Score: 2

      Lasts time I read/watched Al Jazeera I thought Fox News or msnbc. Levels of bias. Some individual reporters were good but on a whole not really unbiased.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    14. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      But I said "and still not give a fuck about their non-UK viewers". Even if they do not care, they would get more money than they do now.

    15. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would agree that Al Jazeera does an excellent job on stories about most of the world. When covering the middle east, however, they are pretty much the official voice of the Muslim Brotherhood, being owned by the government of Qatar, and are about as biased as you can get.

    16. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by lgw · · Score: 1

      The "anyone who wants to pay" part is the problem. As soon as people can choose whether to pay or not (be they subscribers or advertisers), the BBC has to start tailoring their product to match the people making the choice to pay or not. As soon as that happens they have motivation to bias their reporting.

      They already bias their reporting, so no flaw there. Maybe they'd change to a bias less in sync with your own? The world would keep turning. As far as all other programming, the more they make it appealing to viewers, the better.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    17. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh I'm already seeing ads on the newer BBC app. The old one did not have ads.

    18. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just like with the ABC and Australia, it is the least bias media we have thanks to everyone funding it. The sad part is the conservatives hate it, they tried to kill it recently because they thought it should be a propaganda tool (they actually said it should always be promoting the government of the day!). We got that leader kicked out, along with his attempts to kill the ABC, still hear the mumblings from the right that it is a left wing bias source even after every independent review stated otherwise. Reality just has a left-wing bias (at least in terms with what is classed as right wing today in Australia, anti-caring, us-vs-them, the poor deserve it etc..)

    19. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by Panoptes · · Score: 1

      "The BBC is already exceptionally biased without advertising. Any claim to the contrary is absurd."

      Don't you just love sweeping statements without a jot of justification, and a dash of pompous bombast thrown in for good measure?

    20. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead, they have no choice but to be pro government. Not pro current government, or pro viewer's choice government, but pro government in a general sense.

      That leaves an entire group of people unrepresented but still having to pay--those who believe in no or very little government.

      As an anarchist myself, I find the BBC just as biased and full of bullshit as FOX News. They just aren't biased to a specific party, instead, they're biased towards promoting statism.

      Disgusting to see british people accept this.

    21. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your user name is appropriate....

      The whole point the GP is trying to make is that the BBC is choosing to prioritize non-biased reporting over profit. (Whether this is true or not, I would not know. (I'm an American, so I don't pay that much attention to the BBC's political views.)) I know that's hard to even think about in the United Capitalist States of American Profits but, apparently in other places of the world, people actually give a crap about the quality products and services they provide and do not want to compromise them just because it can make them more money. I know, I know, it's SHOCKING, to think that even one person, much less a company could actually want to promote morals and ethics over un-satisfiable greed and profits, but that's the world for you.

    22. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      Al Jazeera is deeply liberal. It just has a much more serious and less clickbaity tone than so many other liberal news sources these days (Salon, anyone?)

      Whether this liberalism is for propaganda purposes or not is left to the reader to decide.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    23. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO. Stop pushing your version of capitalism on the rest of us.

    24. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disgusting to see british people accept this.

      It's expected that you would think so. After all, the vast majority of the British people is not anarchistic, and is thus disagreeing with you on a great many things. So, it's disgusting to you, but not disgusting to almost (but not quite) everyone else. Respect that, please. Feel free to change it politically, however. That's your right.

    25. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no real parties, both the major parties in both the UK and US are quite content to share power between themselves and maintain the status quo.
      People are much less likely to revolt if you give them the impression of a choice, so you just split the rulers into 2 "parties" and pretend they're any different from each other so that once one becomes unpopular enough you can switch to the other for a few years.

    26. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ABC is nothing but rubbish, it's left-wing propaganda.

    27. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      I live in Europe and am well accustomed to state media (and I'm also not a capitalist, at least not by US and UK standards).

      My point was very simple, but I will try to make it even simpler for you. BBC now gets X money from UK residents via the usual fees for state media. If they sell their program to viewers outside the UK as they already do now (BBC worldwide), only more liberally and with full access to their program, they would get X+Y funding and would not have to change their program direction even a bit (assuming they're a bunch of reasonable adults). They could even spend Y money on charity without jeopardizing their independence even a tiny little bit.

      If you're so worried that BBC could become biased by the additional Y money, then why would you defend the current bizarre construction with BBC worldwide instead of the obvious solution to make their program available to viewers outside the UK for free?

    28. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      My version of capitalism is Skandinavian socialism with strong anti-cartel regulations and customer protection laws, but otherwise minimal interference of politics with economy. And no, I won't stop pushing my version of capitalism on the rest of us.

    29. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had the pleasure of watching a Qatari official interviewed on AJ. I don't remember his exact position but it was something like Minister of Labor Standards.

      The interviewer was asking hard-hitting questions about mistreatment of foreign workers.

      It was meant to look like a serious interview but it was obviously scripted. He had an answer for everything and apparently if you have ANY problems as a foreign laborer you can just tell someone in government and get it all straightened out in no time.

      It was quite amusing actually.

      On the whole though their reporting is very good, but always remember who owns them.

    30. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Yeah they should load up their websites and apps with ads instead!

      What could possibly go wrong...

      Where did you get that conclusion from the parent post?

    31. Re:Just Sell It World Wide by Maritz · · Score: 1

      The BBC is already exceptionally biased without advertising. Any claim to the contrary is absurd.

      Nope.

      I just dismissed your unevidenced assertion without evidence.

      Either you're a Tory, in which case you hate the BBC generally, but specifically because it's Red, or you're a leftie, in which case you hate it because it's Conservative.

      So own up, which one-eyed biased ideologue are you? I have to be honest, I'm guessing the former.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  8. Why can't we just pay for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand why the BBC does not realize they can sell access to their British services for all of us living abroad.

    I would happily pay the equivalent of a TV license fee directly to the BBC to have access to their UK services abroad.

    When I say UK services I mean TV and iplayer like it is in the UK - not BBC America.

    Sure - local providers have license agreements with the BBC - like PBS buying a lot of content off of the BBC - I don't care: work it out.

    1. Re:Why can't we just pay for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is a problem with the Copyright Holders wanting to have their cake and eat it.
      The might license a show to be shown in the UK but not say in Spain. If you are in Spain then these copyright holders don't want you to see the show. End of story.
      The Beeb is duty bound to try to stop this copyright infringement.
      Then there are the Actors in their own shows. They get paid for the broadcast to the UK and get different rates for other countries.
      It all gets horribly complicated.
      So the easiest way is to try to block iPlayer from being used outside the UK.

    2. Re:Why can't we just pay for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They legally can't. The BBC has to pass the worldwide distribution rights of their shows to their for-profit arm BBC Worldwide which pays them ~20% of the revenues in return (the legal max due to how the BBC is funded). The BBC's special funding is also the source of a number of special headaches for them if the requirement for them to stay a non-profit were dropped they then could sell access worldwide. If you want to bitch about not gaining access iplayer bitch to BBC Worldwide that technically separate business that owns their worldwide rights.

    3. Re:Why can't we just pay for it? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      They have worked it out. They are happy with the status quo.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Why can't we just pay for it? by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      There is a problem with the Copyright Holders wanting to have their cake and eat it.
      The might license a show to be shown in the UK but not say in Spain. If you are in Spain then these copyright holders don't want you to see the show. End of story.

      How can this possibly apply to, say, Radio 4?

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  9. EU, a continent without borders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    EU, a continent with borders, at least for human smugglers, drugs traffickers, money launderers and undeclared workers, but playing a documentary or tv show from your neighboring country? Than you're an ordinary thief, a pirate, a criminal.

    It's easier to kidnap an eastern European blond sex slave, buy a handful of Kalashnikov's in Bulgaria, buy some legal stocks with your black money in Austria, and sell your sex slave in a Dutch brothel, sell your weapons to some radicalized Muslims in Brussels and exchange your legal stocks for some British pounds in London, than it is to stream a freaking boring British TV show in France, even if the one who wants to stream the show is a Brit living in France.

    Watch video streams? Are you crazy, you criminal?

    Muslim immigrants? Well you take them and give them a warm welcome, and adapt to their culture, you racist.

    1. Re:EU, a continent without borders by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

      Stop complaining and start buying and selling people and guns. Long live capitalism, what are you, a commie?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:EU, a continent without borders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A true British gentleman would never live in France.

    3. Re:EU, a continent without borders by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      A true British gentleman would never live in France.

      I'm British, but no gentleman!

      I'm very glad that Britain is in the EU. Why? So I can live anywhere in Europe EXCEPT the UK!

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    4. Re:EU, a continent without borders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it is commonly understood that BBC only broadcasts for gentlemen ...

    5. Re:EU, a continent without borders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All right, then, make it Spain. That better?

    6. Re:EU, a continent without borders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who would want to watch that propaganda coming from BBC anyway?

    7. Re:EU, a continent without borders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it is commonly understood that BBC only broadcasts for gentlemen ...

      With the exception of a single 1-hour radio program for women.

    8. Re:EU, a continent without borders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easier to kidnap an eastern European blond sex slave, buy a handful of Kalashnikov's in Bulgaria, buy some legal stocks with your black money in Austria, and sell your sex slave in a Dutch brothel, sell your weapons to some radicalized Muslims in Brussels and exchange your legal stocks for some British pounds in London, than it is to stream a freaking boring British TV show in France, even if the one who wants to stream the show is a Brit living in France.

      Thank you for doing the empirical research on this.

    9. Re:EU, a continent without borders by adhdengineer · · Score: 1

      plus they now have a show entirely about baking! what more could women want? well, perhaps one about laundry and another about vacuuming i suppose.

  10. Payments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "NO, too hard to implement payments, so just block the shit out of it". - BBC Exec.

    Seriously, sometimes I cannot defend BBC any more. They are making it harder every year.

    It's like content producers WANT piracy.

  11. BBC is only for Redcoats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    You are all Redcoats. Redcoats say "down with america". DOWN WITH AMERICA! DOWN WITH THE UNITED STATES redcoats DOWN WITH THEM. Make them a colony again say the redcoats. YOU REDCOATS!!!

  12. Who decides? by Solandri · · Score: 0

    "BBC iPlayer and the content on it is paid for by UK licence fee payers in the UK and we take appropriate steps to protect access to this content."

    Then shouldn't the UK license fee payers be the ones who decide whether the content should be protected, or anyone in the world should be allowed to view it? Not the BBC?

    1. Re:Who decides? by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Why? The licence fee payers don't get to decide on BBC programming.

      Don't like it? Oppose the licence fee like millions of us already do.

      --
      == Jez ==
      Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
    2. Re:Who decides? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Yes. Millions of Top Gear fans oppose paying the BBC license fee.

      (And they have done so since long before Clarkson punched a producer and was sacked.)

  13. Great.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great.. I'm from the UK but I use a paid UK based VPN regardless for other reasons. I pay my license fee but I guess this now means I'm not allowed access BBC content now...

    Guess that's going to break my cronjob which downloads the new Danger Mouse each day from BBC iPlayer... :-/

    I really wish media companies would stop saying "VPN user = pirate" it's simply not true. There are other use cases for a VPN than piracy and bypassing blockades.

    It's a bit like how they automatically think if you're using bittorrent your a pirate. Again not necessarily true as bittorrent can also be used to share legal files.

    Granted a some people will use both for piracy but there are users who do not.

  14. Charge me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live outside of the UK. I would happily pay BBC the conventional licence fees if they unblocked my IP.

    1. Re:Charge me. by beelsebob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with that is that as soon as people can choose to pay it or not, the BBC has to pander to them to keep them paying - and they become biased. The reason that the BBC isn't as massively biased as CNN or Fox is because its funding is guaranteed, and it doesn't have to pander to audiences.

    2. Re:Charge me. by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      ... the BBC isn't as massively biased ...

      It sounds more like the BBC is just biased in a way which you happen to agree with. Forcing their audience to pay anyway just substitutes the bias of the journalists or their bosses for the the bias from needing to be useful and relevant to the people watching.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    3. Re:Charge me. by beelsebob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, the BBC does a reasonable job of being unbiased. They don't get it right all the time, and certainly, in general they have a slight leftward lean, but they do a far far far better job than any channel beholden to people who can choose whether to pay or not. You only need to look at CNN's coverage of who won the democratic debate as an example of how bad it can get if you're beholden to people choosing to pay you.

    4. Re:Charge me. by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All media has bias. It's inherent in the role of choosing stories to emphasize and how to cover them. People naturally choose what interests them, what they think is important, etc... People generally don't recognize it when they mostly agree with the underlying premise it's based on and thus consider it reasonably "unbiased".

      By default, I'd expect the BBC's reporters to have at least an "educated brit" bias, for example. Likely average left-wing politically (with probably a few noticeable exceptions, even more noticeable for their rarity) of the general population based on their chosen profession.

      Insisting the BBC is unbiased says more about your own cultural background and personal biases than it does about the BBC. It's like the old joke about how the intelligence of someone is defined by how much they agree with me on everything...

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    5. Re:Charge me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      You obviously lean left yourself so you don't see what they broadcast as being biased. They have lot more a "slight leftward lean".

    6. Re:Charge me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Politically they may strive to be unbiased, but in matters of social policy they are extremely biased. I used to read BBC News' website every day but eventually had to give up. The constant stream of "look at how backward is the USA, and how superior is the British nanny-state" became nauseating.

      I'm Canadian by the way, so it's not a case of misplaced patriotism.

    7. Re:Charge me. by chihowa · · Score: 2

      They don't get it right all the time, and certainly, in general they have a slight leftward lean, but they do a far far far better job than any channel beholden to people who can choose whether to pay or not.

      From my perspective, they don't have a leftward lean as much as they have an authoritarian, pro-government lean. That may have something to do with them being "beholden to people who can choose whether to pay or not."

      Superficially, the left appears more authoritarian, but that's only because the right prefers to distribute the authority (and thus diffuse the accountability) through the private sector.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    8. Re:Charge me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they could charge people for outside of UK access. Even if those people are from the UK and already paying a license fee.

    9. Re:Charge me. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      All media has bias. It's inherent in the role of choosing stories to emphasize and how to cover them. People naturally choose what interests them, what they think is important, etc... People generally don't recognize it when they mostly agree with the underlying premise it's based on and thus consider it reasonably "unbiased".

      That can easily be compensated for by having a diverse content generating team. It is true that every story has a bias of some form, but in many ways freely funded independently operated media outlets show less overall bias than any alternative. Compared to the likes of CNN or Newscorp the BBC is effectively as unbiased as it gets, and they often do a good job of writing examples that come from both sides of major debates.

    10. Re:Charge me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are funny. You are also, most likely, leaning very, very much to the right.

      You see, even slightly left-leaning and slightly right-leaning people both think that the BBC is slightly biased in the other direction. That indicates that the BBC is, in general and on average, actually fairly well balanced.

      You will never, ever think so, because you are too far off into loony right-wing land.

  15. Pester BBC Worldwide by tepples · · Score: 1

    As Anonymous Coward suggested, you could pester BBC Worldwide to create a subscription service to watch BBC-owned programmes and then tell us what form letter you get.

  16. It's so stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Our content is great, so we will do everything in our power to prevent people from seeing it."

    1. Re:It's so stupid by easyTree · · Score: 1

      They should stop creating content and destroy the archives - you can never be too careful - there are potential viewers around every corner.

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    2. Re:It's so stupid by lgw · · Score: 1

      They tried that before, but some terrible fans^W pirates restored almost everything they broadcast.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:It's so stupid by oldmac31310 · · Score: 0

      Well said. Exactly what I was thinking.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
  17. So what if the world sees it? by severn2j · · Score: 1

    As a UK resident and license fee payer, I have no problem whatsoever with non-UK residents watching the BBC.. I don't really understand why the BBC has a problem with it, it doesn't affect the amount of money they receive so who cares who watches it?

    1. Re:So what if the world sees it? by caseih · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Probably this crack down is in preparation for BBC offering paid iPlayer access world-wide to a subset of the content. This is something I think a lot of people around the world have wanted for some time.

    2. Re:So what if the world sees it? by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      The problem there surely is the "subset of the content" aspect. Currently the only TV we watch in the US is iplayer - and most of that is documentaries that the BBC still does much better than the American channels do. If the subset of the content is just major new series, I wouldn't pay for it. I would be very happy to pay a subscription to all content - and even better if, like CBS all access and other options, it then includes a back catalogue so you don't have to catch a programme within 30 days of broadcast.

    3. Re:So what if the world sees it? by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      As a UK resident and license fee payer, I have no problem whatsoever with non-UK residents watching the BBC.. I don't really understand why the BBC has a problem with it, it doesn't affect the amount of money they receive so who cares who watches it?

      They are legally obliged to care about it due to the way they are funded.

    4. Re:So what if the world sees it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but it does have such an effect.

      See, overseas broadcasters pay for BBC content. They won't pay as much if the BBC is giving it away for free to everybody.

    5. Re:So what if the world sees it? by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      I would be very happy to pay a subscription to all content

      You might change your mind on that if they started putting out blatantly biased propaganda for or against certain US political parties, as they do for UK ones over here.

      --
      == Jez ==
      Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
    6. Re:So what if the world sees it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might change your mind on that if they started putting out blatantly biased propaganda for or against certain US political parties, as they do for UK ones over here.

      Have you ever seen US news? Hard to get more partisan than what already exists.

    7. Re:So what if the world sees it? by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      The BBC are indeed biased towards the Tory party. But it would be worse if the UK didn't have a public sector broadcaster. Look at Fox News!

    8. Re:So what if the world sees it? by terbeaux · · Score: 1

      Can you write to someone to let them know that? I don't know how it works in the UK but if enough people write letters about stuff in the USA then our representatives still ignore it and listen to the highest paying special interest group that donated to their campaign. Maybe things are less corrupt in the UK?

    9. Re:So what if the world sees it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with yuo. Granted, I don't live in the UK, but Sweden.

      We have a similar financing of the public service TV/radio here, and I have seen the host on one of our most popular TV shows (Så ska det låta) pointing out that there is a clip from the same TV-show on Youtube. The reason for pointing it out was the high number of views it had, and that it was the number one hit when searching for a particular song. They obviously knew about it, and yet they point it out (this was broadcast, not cut out in editing!) and a number of years later, the clip is still on Youtube.

    10. Re:So what if the world sees it? by jo_ham · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The BBC are indeed biased towards the Tory party. But it would be worse if the UK didn't have a public sector broadcaster. Look at Fox News!

      It's always hilarious to read about which way they think the BBC is biased. Just in this article alone the BBC has been accused of being both "biased towards the left" and "biased towards the Tories".

      I think that might suggest more about the viewer than the organisation - in other words, that it is actually pretty balanced overall.

    11. Re:So what if the world sees it? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Journalists should anger all political entities with their coverage. That's kinda part of their job, because the truth will always disturb any politician.

    12. Re:So what if the world sees it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? My wife only knows what a VPN because I installed it in her mobile, and for my whole extended family it could be a dirty word.

    13. Re:So what if the world sees it? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Sorry, my priority to write letters to abolish the licensing fee and instead require the BBC to use encrypted channels if they want to force people to pay a fee for access for their channels instead of trying to force everyone to pay a licensing fee because they're 'automatically' included in Freeview, Sky, Cable etc. in an attempt to get everyone in the UK to pay for a license whether they watch the BBC or not.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    14. Re:So what if the world sees it? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Journalists should anger all political entities with their coverage.

      Why don't you for once just do the fucking news.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    15. Re:So what if the world sees it? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      What it says about this particular viewer is that I'm taking the piss out of the OP. In reality the BBC is remarkably unbiased - within the limits of British political viewpoints. Or at least biased to the centre - where centre means a point somewhere between the two major parties.

      For sure, to anyone who's politics are more left than Labour or more right than the Conservatives would see the BBC is biased. Which is pretty much your point.

  18. Please... by easyTree · · Score: 1

    Please take this to its logical conclusion and cease all operations. kthx.

    --
    Requiem for the American Dream
    1. Re:Please... by easyTree · · Score: 0

      ...including attempting to extract a licence fee from everyone resident in our country by continual harassment.

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
  19. Scrap the BBC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    They're the propaganda branch of the Government. Scrap it and the license free tax. If they want to charge commercial fees then let them compete like any other commercial broadcaster without an unfair advantage.

  20. TV license verification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they want this to end it is a very simple thing: Require some verification of your TV license other than a simple "Do you have a TV license, Yes or No?" box which obviously everyone is going to click yes to. If they required you verify in some way your TV license, it would put a stop to all non-license-paying peoples watching locally and abroad, and allow them to keep VPN's at the same time. I don't personally live in the UK but I do make use of a UK-based VPN to watch iplayer content. Its high quality and live, its great. But I know first hand if they required me to validate the TV license I supposedly had there would be no way I could do such a thing. Why BBC doesn't do this is beyond me. Maybe its really that difficult to verify a TV license. You'd think since the BBC was sort of part of the government it would be able to access that sort of information.

    1. Re:TV license verification by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I live in a country with a similar problem, where our national TV broadcaster gets to squeeze money out of you for having a TV. It has been suggested that they could encrypt their content and people who pay their fee (and hence have a TV) get a free decoder card. For some odd reason they opposed it quite vehemently.

      The cynic in me would say that they know that NOBODY would get the useless card to decode a program nobody watches.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  21. Simple Solution by nuckfuts · · Score: 1

    So their concern comes down to people accessing content that they aren't paying for? Then charge for access. They estimate 60 million people outside the UK are accessing. That's a large potential market.

    I'm currently paying for VPN service to watch shows with iPlayer. I would be happy to just pay them directly.

    1. Re:Simple Solution by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      So their concern comes down to people accessing content that they aren't paying for? Then charge for access. They estimate 60 million people outside the UK are accessing. That's a large potential market.

      I'm currently paying for VPN service to watch shows with iPlayer. I would be happy to just pay them directly.

      The BBC doesn't estimate that number - that number has been suggested by third parties and the BBC has suggested that the number is nowhere near accurate.

      The other point is that they *do* charge for access outside the UK, but via their for-profit arm BBC Worldwide, which handles distribution of their content to non-UK markets. Due to various legal reasons in the way the BBC is funded, they have to do it this way, and the profits they can receive back from BBC Worldwide from these overseas sales are limited by legal limitations.

      They understand how big the market is but they are legally hamstrung in being able to access it.

    2. Re:Simple Solution by nuckfuts · · Score: 1

      So their concern comes down to people accessing content that they aren't paying for? Then charge for access. They estimate 60 million people outside the UK are accessing. That's a large potential market.

      I'm currently paying for VPN service to watch shows with iPlayer. I would be happy to just pay them directly.

      The BBC doesn't estimate that number - that number has been suggested by third parties and the BBC has suggested that the number is nowhere near accurate.

      The other point is that they *do* charge for access outside the UK, but via their for-profit arm BBC Worldwide, which handles distribution of their content to non-UK markets. Due to various legal reasons in the way the BBC is funded, they have to do it this way, and the profits they can receive back from BBC Worldwide from these overseas sales are limited by legal limitations.

      They understand how big the market is but they are legally hamstrung in being able to access it.

      So some bright parliamentarian should propose changing the law. People want to pay for our content? Then take their money.

      It doesn't even have to be a "for-profit" scenario, if that contravenes the BBC's mandate. Just charge what it takes to cover the cost of distribution. With iPlayer it's not even possible to skip over the ads. Even their advertisers should be happy with more eyeballs viewing their content.

    3. Re:Simple Solution by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      So their concern comes down to people accessing content that they aren't paying for? Then charge for access. They estimate 60 million people outside the UK are accessing. That's a large potential market.

      I'm currently paying for VPN service to watch shows with iPlayer. I would be happy to just pay them directly.

      The BBC doesn't estimate that number - that number has been suggested by third parties and the BBC has suggested that the number is nowhere near accurate.

      The other point is that they *do* charge for access outside the UK, but via their for-profit arm BBC Worldwide, which handles distribution of their content to non-UK markets. Due to various legal reasons in the way the BBC is funded, they have to do it this way, and the profits they can receive back from BBC Worldwide from these overseas sales are limited by legal limitations.

      They understand how big the market is but they are legally hamstrung in being able to access it.

      So some bright parliamentarian should propose changing the law. People want to pay for our content? Then take their money.

      It doesn't even have to be a "for-profit" scenario, if that contravenes the BBC's mandate. Just charge what it takes to cover the cost of distribution. With iPlayer it's not even possible to skip over the ads. Even their advertisers should be happy with more eyeballs viewing their content.

      Right now parliament is not where the BBC wants to go for support - the current conservative government wants nothing more than to cripple the BBC. They certainly want the licence fee to go away, or better yet, attach even more restrictive conditions to it that prevent the BBC from being able to compete with the wealthy donor to the tories - Rupert Murdoch.

      Also, there aren't any adverts on iPlayer, unless you mean the intertitles?

    4. Re:Simple Solution by nuckfuts · · Score: 1

      Also, there aren't any adverts on iPlayer, unless you mean the intertitles?

      I have no idea what an "intertitle" is, but I know what advertisements are, or what we refer to here as "commercials". Not sure if you call them that in the UK, but I am subjected to two or three rounds of commercials in the course of watching a show. You can see little markers on the iPlayer timeline where they are going to occur, but you can't skip past them.

    5. Re:Simple Solution by jo_ham · · Score: 2

      Inter titles are the things they show between shows, like the channel branding or upcoming pieces for shows on the network.

      On the iPlayer site (I live in the UK) these commercials are not present, nor are there any markers visible in the timeline that indicate where one would be. This was my confusion. I assume they appear in the same way that the ads do in youtube timelines?

      If these are present in your version of iPlayer, I assume they are inserted by the vpn host or something? They are definitely not present in iPlayer as served up by the BBC in the UK.

    6. Re:Simple Solution by nuckfuts · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see my mistake. I was confusing "itvplayer" with "iplayer".

    7. Re:Simple Solution by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see my mistake. I was confusing "itvplayer" with "iplayer".

      Ah, yes, that would do it. Yes, the other commercial providers in the UK (ITV, Channel 4 etc) have adverts on their players.

      Strangely the adverts are always in super high definition and load instantly while the content itself is potato quality and often fails to load. Was never a fan of Channel 4's player in particular unless it has been vastly improved.

  22. How do they detect a VPN? by grahammm · · Score: 1

    Imagine a company were to set up a roadwarrior style VPN in their UK office (which for the sake of argument assume a TV licence) for their UK staff who are visiting abroad to access IPlayer from their hotels in the evening. How would the BBC be able to tell that those staff were accessing it via the VPN and not from computers directly connected to the office LAN?

    1. Re:How do they detect a VPN? by mridoni · · Score: 1

      They can't, they just block commercial VPN providers, or better said, their endpoints in UK. This stops 90% of unwanted access, the other 10% is company-provided VPNs and people who set up their own servers to tunnel traffic (this is what a lot of those cheap VPSs, with little CPU and disk space are used for).

    2. Re:How do they detect a VPN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A privately set up VPN as you describe probably wouldn't be detected, and the BBC probably doesn't care much about individual setups. What they can do fairly easily is track IP addresses from popular region-shifting VPN services like TorGuard.

    3. Re:How do they detect a VPN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can't.

      What they can do is canvas the major VPN providers and locate their end points within the UK (probably well less than a 1000, perhaps less than a 100) and block them directly. It's then a matter of playing whack-a-mole as the VPN providers change end point IPs.

      An alternative to your corporate approach is to do what I do, and be able to VPN into my UK house from anywhere in the world, and access BBC content that way. Such a set up should be pretty standard geek fare, so if you aren't doing it then perhaps you need to hand in your card? ...

    4. Re:How do they detect a VPN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would you detect a VPN?

      • TTL varying from visitor to visitor
      • MTU being a common MTU minus standard tunnel overhead
      • Drastically higher RTT from transoceanic VPNs
      • Local timezone, as visible from Flash/JS
      • Local languages

      There's a bunch of (unreliable) ways that can be turned into a decent fingerprint if you watch a host over time.

    5. Re:How do they detect a VPN? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      When I first started investigating accessing the iPlayer from outside the UK, I found that all you need is to use a UK-based DNS server. That's it. There was no check on IP address used to download the media. Other UK services required that the media download went to a UK IP address (after showing the adverts!).

      At some point the BBC might shut off access to IP addresses that are in datacenters since these are more likely to be using a VPN.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    6. Re:How do they detect a VPN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a FAR MUCH BETTER question. How many millions of public money are they squandering in such "advanced" technology to block VPNs? (posted as anon to not undo moderation)

    7. Re:How do they detect a VPN? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      How many millions of public money are they squandering in such "advanced" technology to block VPNs?

      It probably doesn't cost them any more than their business as usual as I suspect they got some lowly analyst to fill out known VPN IP ranges into a text file.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  23. Manipulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is only a facet of mass control. Ensure different parts of the global population are given customized propaganda and news. They will never know what really happens in other parts of the world, will believe everything their local branch of Disinformation Inc. tells, them, therefore they will accept without question whatever part they were assigned to play in the big globalized and mind controlled family.

  24. TV vs. Radio by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

    If limiting access to just the UK license fee payers is so important, why is it that BBC Radio is free to listen to online worldwide?

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
    1. Re:TV vs. Radio by xaxa · · Score: 1

      BBC World Service used to be funded directly by the government, although this changed in 2014. I don't think people have caught up with that yet.

  25. Why not block it with a login? by jonwil · · Score: 1

    Presumably they have a database out there of everyone who has paid their TV license. So the BBC could have a registration page where people input their details including their TV license number and (if the details are correct) would let them in.

    That way Brits overseas who have a paid up TV license are able to watch BBC stuff but those who don't have a TV license (including those in the UK) aren't able to watch it.

    1. Re:Why not block it with a login? by Xiaran · · Score: 1

      If they did this then it would be a very short step to being able to easily block people that do not want to pay their TV license. The BBC do not want this.

  26. IPVanish still working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As the summary said, IPVanish must've had a trick up its sleeve. I can confirm that I'm downloading a BBC program(me) using IPVanish, although I actually live in the U.S.

    CAPTCHA: imperial

    1. Re:IPVanish still working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Good for them that you are warning them in a public forum. Are you an idiot? I have an idea why it may work, but I am not writing it down here for them to read.

  27. Let me pay the damn license fee by aralin · · Score: 1

    Stop trying to prevent me from watching it. Let me pay the damn license fee for a legal login to that player that is not geo-locked.

    --
    If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
  28. Then let us fucking pay for it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seriously, BBC, the market for bowlderised regional-market crap is negligible when our alternative is to pirate your genuine high-quality content. We'll pay for it!

    But you won't bloody sell it to us. Ergo VPNs and torrents.

    1. Re:Then let us fucking pay for it! by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      But you won't bloody sell it to us.

      Considering so many TV stations license BBC programming, you can do international purchases of DVD/blu-ray content from sites like amazon.co.uk, BBC programmes are available on Netflix. I'm not sure this really is as big of a problem as you're trying to make it out to be.

      This comes from the guy that buys blu-rays of Game of Thrones when it's released because it's not available to me on-demand.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  29. Let ~anyone~ buy a TV license, please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am a US citizen, born and raised. And I despise American TV.
    It's SHIT. 98% of everything on US TV is shit. Plain and simple.
    I subscribe to Dish AT250 and it's SHIT. So called "reality" shows.
    The "Science" channel? Where's the science? A bunch of washed up entertainers reviewing youtube idiots, explaining why a shot to the nuts hurts.

    The "Learning" channel? Really?
    And on and on and on.. What pisses me off is that I have to subscribe to the top tier to get the slightly less shitty channels. $110 a month this costs me.

    I also have Amazon Prime which I got for the shipping. I don't really find much to watch on there but I will be watching the Top Gear boys for sure.
    I have Hulu Plus and Netflix. Meh.. I also allow my best friend to watch it so it gets some use.
    I waited and waited for HBO NOW to come to Roku. I got tired of waiting and bought an Apple TV 3. About 2 months before they announced the ATV 4.
    That's ok, I'm buying an ATV4 and a Roku 4 soon anyway. So Dish wanted $20 a month for HBO, that's what it cost me to watch Game of Thrones. As soon as the season was over I canceled it on Dish. Now I pay monthly and ongoing for HBO NOW through Apple. I watch it several times a week.

    But overall, I'm extremely disappointed with American TV shows, movies and channels.
    I've watched a LOT of BBC material and it's great. I love their science shows where they teach real science without hand puppets and crayons. Think Through the Wormhole with their idiotic animations. Brian Cox vs Morgan Freeman. WTF? Morgan Freeman is not a scientist. Not even a little. Also TTWH is always going on about the "god" thing which is extremely annoying. So much about that show is crap.

    I know that there BBC TV License fee is £145.50 a year which is $224.64 in USD. $18.72 a month. If I could have full access to the BBC library through iPlayer I would be happy to pay them that. One thing to consider is that I wouldn't have access to live OTA TV like a resident would so perhaps bring the fee down a little. $15 a month for iPlayer only access would be more than fair and I would be more than happy to pay the BBC. And I don't want Americanized shows, I want pure British content. No American influence, no commercials, no banners covering the lower third of the screen with little people jumping up and down waving and blowing shit up to let me know about a different program coming up 2 months from now. Just the show. I love British humor, I love British culture. I want to see the world through their eyes and experience British life vicariously through Brits because there's a zero chance that I'll ever get to travel there much less live there.
    I'm too tied down to life here (family and property) and I just can't travel. British television gives me the chance to learn new things and to see outside of the Americanized bubble that we are trapped in.

    1. Re:Let ~anyone~ buy a TV license, please! by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      If I could have full access to the BBC library through iPlayer I would be happy to pay them that.

      Get a UK VPS, setup VPN on VPS, use VPN to access iPlayer (BBC are blocking VPN providers, they can't detect VPNs being used typically).

      One thing to consider is that I wouldn't have access to live OTA TV like a resident would so perhaps bring the fee down a little.

      If you watch live BBC programming, it doesn't matter if it's through satellite, cable, over the air or Internet streaming, you have to pay for a license regardless here. So, I don't see why you should get any particular exception to this. I should also note that 'on-demand' use of iPlayer does not require a TV license.

      $15 a month for iPlayer only access would be more than fair and I would be more than happy to pay the BBC.

      I think you can get a London VPS for about that price from Digital Ocean.

      No American influence

      There is plenty of American influence in BBC programming.

      no commercials

      BBC has commercials, they're just not of company products/services.

      no banners covering the lower third of the screen with little people jumping up and down waving and blowing shit up to let me know about a different program coming up 2 months from now

      Can't recall if it's the BBC channels (or other UK channels) that do this to tell you what's coming up shortly.

      I want to see the world through their eyes and experience British life vicariously through Brits

      Much of the 35 year olds and younger are relying more on Internet than they do on TV these days.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    2. Re:Let ~anyone~ buy a TV license, please! by Ambient+Sheep · · Score: 2

      I've watched a LOT of BBC material and it's great. I love their science shows where they teach real science without hand puppets and crayons. Think Through the Wormhole with their idiotic animations. Brian Cox vs Morgan Freeman. WTF? Morgan Freeman is not a scientist. Not even a little. Also TTWH is always going on about the "god" thing which is extremely annoying. So much about that show is crap.

      The funny thing is, that many of us Brit science-y types bemoan the state of BBC science programming these days, compared to what it used to be back in the 70s and 80s. By the 90s, all the old guys had retired and the young arts graduates had taken over, and it was all dumbed down hugely, on the grounds that if they couldn't understand it, then surely nobody could.

      Thankfully this trend has reversed a little in recent years, although my blood still boiled when, during the first episode of Prof. Brian Cox's flagship series "Wonders of the Solar System", he managed to spend an hour twatting about the globe, being filmed looking dashing & windswept in various beauty spots, allegedly to "explain the workings of a total solar eclipse", yet without ever actually doing so. A fifteen-second animated diagram of the Earth-Moon-Sun relationship, as we used to get back in the 1970s, was all it needed, but nooooo, let's just have more of Brian looking mystical on a mountain-top.

      An intelligent nine-year-old boy shouldn't, after watching a one-hour programme about solar eclipses, turn round and say "But I still don't understand WHY it happens". But he - my then stepson - did. It's not good enough.

      Still, glad to hear how much you enjoy our TV programming. For all its faults, and declining standards, it's still good stuff, and most of us know it. :-)

    3. Re:Let ~anyone~ buy a TV license, please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just remember that some of the old science shows were not done by BBC but ITV and Reddifusion related companies, the SCIENCE! guy for instance was on ITV.

  30. They export shows too by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    I am not defending this short sighted, old fashioned approach but the TV channels, online outlets like Amazon, Apple, Google and DVD/Bluray distributors would go crazy if they setup a legimate way to sell to global audience.

    I use VPN against censor and packet logging government and it always made me curious about BBC and other large networks turning blind eye to well known IP blocks. IMHO VPN just postponed the revolution which should take place in commercial video broadcasting for a long time coming. Mp3 piracy woke up the audio industry and now with current bandwidth, 4K and H265, it is time for TV industry.

  31. Another exercise in futility by kuzb · · Score: 1

    How exactly do you expect to block every VPN? How do you determine what connections are VPNs and what aren't? I don't get how a country that is so tech savvy can be so tech stupid.

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
  32. Best by ssb100li8071 · · Score: 1

    Awesome share indeed.