• June 16, 2024



Many media providers are switching to newer, quicker, and less expensive technologies in the contemporary era from their outdated, antiquated ones. Like most technological advancements, television began with a small number of black-and-white channels and gradually expanded to include color channels. Eventually, hundreds of channels were available through cable and satellite. Alongside this advancement came increasingly potent firms that held tenaciously to their media acumen in an attempt to extract every last dime from the customer. The proliferation of unrestricted, cheaper, and easier-to-use unlicensed television streaming coincided with the broad availability of the internet. The complexities of IPTV, Xtream codes, and the fight against live TV piracy will all be clarified in this article.

Read More: xtream code


Since IPTV is the foundation of this site, it is first necessary to comprehend what it is. The term IPTV refers to Internet Protocol Television, which is live television that is delivered over the internet as opposed to cable or satellite.

It may not sound very harmful or bothersome, but it can be, just not for the customer. For well-known cable and satellite television companies like Cox, Dish, DirecTV, and Xfinity, IPTV poses a serious challenge. These new services, both legal (like Hulu TV and Pluto) and maybe less genuine (like Area51 and Kodi), have been causing their hold on regional monopolies to loosen.

People who have “cut their cable cords” and switched to primarily illicit television streaming services are known as “cord-cutters,” a rising counterculture brought about by the legitimate live television providers’ abuse of its customers. The price is the primary factor. Once customers sign the required contract, cable providers have a reputation for being avaricious and tack on as many extra costs as they can.

It is evident that cable companies do not have an interest in being upfront and open with their clients, which is why many of them have turned away from traditional television sources.

Similar to Americans, European television viewers are switching from traditional cable to IPTV by cutting the cord. A research conducted by the European Intellectual Property Organization (EUIPO) claims that up to 13.7 million citizens of the EU stream IPTV without authorization, costing the EU a total of €941.7 million ($1.043 billion) annually. The same survey states that the typical EU citizen spends €5.74, or $6.36, a month on illicit or unregistered IPTV. These numbers demonstrate the global prominence of IPTV and provide justification for the Xtream codes raid.


Xtream Codes are essentially a mechanism that thousands of unlicensed IPTV operators employ. This particular solution was a Customer/Content Management System, or CMS for short. It essentially converts streaming data from IPTV providers into an M3U format that can be given to clients using their unique ID.

Log-in details, payment methods and capabilities, streaming data conversion, and the capacity to create customer accounts were all included in the client or customer ID. Since this technology builds a bridge between the consumer and the IPTV supplier, it is an essential connection in the relationship.

Why then did EU law enforcement target Xtream codes? The software solution being offered was the biggest and finest CMS available, in addition to being a crucial component of the customer-IPTV transaction. With a large number of consumers, Xtream was able to connect and maintain the fastest speed possible.


A number of European Union nations participated in a significant anti-piracy effort. The authorities attempted to bring down each IPTV provider’s website and server during earlier actions against illicit IPTV providers. The overwhelming quantity of streaming providers presented the authorities with their biggest challenge. The authorities went after the Xtream codes, which serve as the foundation for IPTV providers, in an attempt to eliminate as many unapproved providers as they could in one swift action. Regretfully, IPTV manufacturers are extremely resilient, which poses a challenge to both genuine television companies and the government.


The IPTV operation was only temporarily disrupted by the Xtream codes raid; other CMSs will step in to cover the void. However, this does not signify that the conflict has ended. The goal of cable corporations will remain to force IPTV providers out of the market. DISH filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against IPTV provider Easybox in August 2019. I’ve posted the nature of action for this case below.

Since IPTV is hurting them, cable companies will probably do all in their power to regain control of the market and maintain strong earnings. This might entail pursuing IPTV illegal providers or even customers/subscribers (which could include you).


If your IPTV provider was using Xtream codes, then streaming was still possible even if this raid probably prevented you from being able to make payments, access your account, or establish an account, among other things.

It is more likely that your IPTV provider has found another CMS solution to use and that all services are back up, even if it is still conceivable that they are down and working to recover. It appears that IPTV will be unaffected by the raids and will even grow. One important issue to keep in mind is that, as a “end-user” customer, IPTV is typically unlawful for both you and the provider.