You can watch iPlayer content without a licence, as long as it is not "live" content. So the new service as and when it arrives will need a licence, but the current iPlayer doesn't.

There's a bog about it here at the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/01/iplayer_does_not_require_a_tv_1.html

And the iPlayer FAQs reveal the kind of nonsensical detail that we all love.
Apparently, when the live service arrives, your TV licence will cover you to watch live TV outside your house on your laptop - as long as it is running on batteries, and isn't plugged in

There's something almost logical, and slightly mystical, about this. Does this mean you are allowed to watch live content, as long as you are using electricity that came from your house, where you have a TV licence?

But no, it just says internal batteries, they could have been charged anywhere. It's another example of trying to apply outdated systems, designed for broadcast to cumbersome devices, to new situations.

The BBC says it's not worried now, as people with broadband tend to also have TV licences. But that will change gradually.

I do hope the licence fee does evolve to fit the new paradigms. I'm one of those people who likes the BBC, believes the fee is fair, and pays up without a murmur.

Including licence fees for my lodgers, who need separate licences. Even though they are using my electricity...

http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/about_iplayer/tvlicence

Updated by PeterJudge on Jun 9, 2008 9:18 AM

My immediate concern is the effect on my broadband service {already subject to considerable downgading (throttling, shaping, contention issues) regardless of my actual useage} as a result of the iPlayer, streaming audio/video and ultimately TV over the Internet.

I do not use the iPlayer, I do not stream audio/video and I do not want to watch TV on my computer. I do not download pirated videos, music, etc.

What I do want is a satisfactory service from my ISP that is not downgraded to a crawl by the above activities and I do not want to have to pay more so that other users can still hog the bandwidth to my disadvantage. If, in the future, I do watch iPlayer, streaming video or TV on my computer, I also do not want to pay twice for over for the priviledge of the same content.

With respect to Ofcom's recent decision that ISP's etc. should bear the costs of BBC's iPlayer, I do not agree this was necessarily the correct decision. I believe that this requires a great deal more thought and that Ofcom should have reached a more considered decision to enable the Internet to move forward constructively, as is urgently required.

Widespread adoption of bandwidth hogging entertainment content will completely alter the nature of the Internet with even far wider implications than current file sharing activities. I personally do not think that it is correct for the BBC, by way of example, to offer such an invasive bandwidth hogging service without bearing some of the responsibilty, consequences and costs. In other words, unfortunately, Net Neutrality likely cannot be sustained and the current model for the Internet must change.

The interests of all users, not just the 'greedy' users must be considered. The current restrictions to our access, applied out of necessicity by ISP's, is not a long term solution but merely a sticking plaster to solve shorage of bandwidth in the short term. Business interests MUST also not be overlooked for the sake of maintaining and growing a healthy and competitive economy.

Updated by Moley on Jun 9, 2008 2:53 PM