Is closing the BBC iPlayer loophole the first step towards subscriptions?

What is the difference between the BBC and Sky? Leaving the weighty issues of politics and ownership to one side, the big difference really is that one is paid for by a licence fee and the other via subscription.

But when we all start entering access codes and passwords to watch BBC1 on the iPlayer will we become subscribers to the BBC? Is that what the culture secretary expected when he said he would rush through legislation to close the loophole?

The BBC has been relatively quiescent following this announcement but the wording of the culture secretary’s statement should give them pause for thought.

Talking about the devastating effect the digital revolution was having on the BBC and other media companies, John Whittingdale promised legislation to “extend the current TV licensing regime not only to cover those watching the BBC live, but also those watching the BBC on catch-up through the iPlayer”.

Now compare this to the letter from the government to the BBC last July when agreeing the financial settlement: “The government will bring forward legislation in the next year to modernise the licence fee to cover public service broadcast catch-up TV.”

In other words, all public service catch-up television, not just that provided by the BBC, would be covered by the end of the iPlayer loophole.

It was always seemed a bit unrealistic to think that ITV and Channel 4 would accept a complicated huddling of their catch-up services with the licence fee. And yet the alternative makes the move towards making the BBC a subscription service much closer.

The BBC has long resisted any move towards subscription, arguing that it would be too costly to introduce and would lead to “first and second class” licence fee payers. Yet after Whittingdale’s statement it seemed largely content that the £150m a year it has previously estimated it loses from digital refuseniks is to be recovered.

So what has changed?

Has the BBC accepted that it is better to get this sorted quickly during the agonising wait for its royal charter to be renewed even if it means it could be taken as a tacit acceptance that the licence fee is not a “forever” option.

Conspiracists wonder whether the BBC see the move to a closed-wall content as a way of competing with huge technology giants such as Google, Facebook and Amazon. The new technology could potentially also make it easier to offer paid-for content overseas.

It seems worth saying at this point that this cannot be a Rupert Murdoch-inspired policy. Sky, which dominates the pay-TV model in the UK, cannot want a BBC competitor in exactly the same space.

Back in July 2014, Terry Burns, then chair of Channel 4, accused the BBC of being “wedded to the licence fee” when he said it should encrypt the iPlayer as a first step towards the corporation moving toward a subscription model.

“You can either say you can only watch the iPlayer if you have a licence fee, or you can watch the iPlayer without a licence fee if you pay some money,” said Burns.

“This is the first big opportunity to move towards conditional access – no pay, no play – but [the BBC] won’t even think about it because they think it is the first step towards subscription.”

So this first step is about to be taken and nobody seems to think this is a big issue for the BBC.