should tv licence be payable when analogue signal ends?

moonrakerz

Rock_Bottom wrote: »

It's all a rip off anyway - if only we all knew the truth about how all the money is used there would be a riot. I read once that the BEEB owned a private jet, paid for by license fees, for all the top nobs use. :eek:

Yeah - and they get free milk from the milkman !!! :rolleyes:

moonrakerz

rmg1 wrote: »

AFAIK, the rule is that you watch TV channels, it because the equipment is capable of
receiving the channels.
The rule used to be, if you have a B&W TV and a separate video recorder/player, you still needed a colour licence as the video was capable of playing colour pictures.

You need a licence if you watch or record LIVE TV broadcasts from any source.

If you use a TV of any sort/size for watching DVDs/Tapes/Gaming you do not need a licence and you do NOT have to tell TV Licensing about it. But - you will start getting all sorts of threatening letters !

chopperharris

the tv licence also includes radio , not that one listens to it of course.If you have equipment capable of recieving a radio signal , and a tv signal is a radio signal , then you are charged.

isnt there an option to opt out? You can opt out of buying road tax by not having a car , so the same must be the consideration for tv...ie not have a radio or tv?

Its time for the bbc to be funded by the independant tv stations themselves as a tax...not the viewers.In fact should the bbc be funded when they sell off the programs , or indeed are party to commercialism themselves?

Mobeer

Blue_Fairy wrote: »

Silly question, but if you just watched tv programes on your computer/laptop (eg. on iplayer, 4OD) do you still have to pay the licence fee? ...

The iPlayer is limited to IP addresses that can be traced to the UK. You do not need to have a TV licence to use it. Furthermore if you are a licence fee payer but are using an IP address traced to a foreign country then you cannot use the iPlayer. I have seen many comments on the BBC website about how unfair this is (to licence fee payers on holiday) but the BBC don't seem to care.

superscaper

chopperharris wrote: »

the tv licence also includes radio , not that one listens to it of course.If you have equipment capable of recieving a radio signal , and a tv signal is a radio signal , then you are charged.

Why is it every time TV licensing it brought up the same old rubbish gets spouted?

There is no license required for radio, that was abandoned well before I was even born.

The TV license is only for using equipment to watch or record TV signals as they are broadcast. It has no specifics about how it is broadcast and has nothing to do with the radio part of the EM spectrum or the EM spectrum at all. Hence why you'd need it to watch the live broadcast TV online on a PC, but not for on demand iplayer etc.

You could have a TV connected to a freeview box which is connected to a TV aerial and if you only use it to listen to digital radio then you do NOT need a license. So the rubbish also being spouted about having to have the TV not connected to receiving equipment is just that, rubbish!

PROLIANT

superscaper wrote: »

Why is it every time TV licensing it brought up the same old rubbish gets spouted?

There is no license required for radio, that was abandoned well before I was even born.

The TV license is only for using equipment to watch or record TV signals as they are broadcast. It has no specifics about how it is broadcast and has nothing to do with the radio part of the EM spectrum or the EM spectrum at all. Hence why you'd need it to watch the live broadcast TV online on a PC, but not for on demand iplayer etc.

You could have a TV connected to a freeview box which is connected to a TV aerial and if you only use it to listen to digital radio then you do NOT need a license. So the rubbish also being spouted about having to have the TV not connected to receiving equipment is just that, rubbish!

I second that, the licensing bureau need to prove that are watching TV before they can take action, having a TV listening to free view broadcast radio is not a smoking gun. Just like when CB Radio was in it's day the Radio Communications agency, now owned by Ofcom, could not fine you or seize your equipment if you were just receiving CB radio signals, they had to prove you were transmitting which involved monitoring externally in your area, same as TV they have to prove you are watching TV stations to be able to take action. I know this because I have bee to court over this about 7 years ago and guess who won...me.

DatabaseError

superscaper wrote: »

You could have a TV connected to a freeview box which is connected to a TV aerial and if you only use it to listen to digital radio then you do NOT need a license. So the rubbish also being spouted about having to have the TV not connected to receiving equipment is just that, rubbish!

Must be one of those things we all know is true, but isn't (as featured on QI) I was under the impression that if equipment was being used which was capable of receiving the tv signal (in your example a freeview box), the fee had to be paid, including a colour licence required to watch your own recorded content on a black and white tv, the video player receives and records in colour even if you can't see it.

superscaper

tonyhague wrote: »

Must be one of those things we all know is true, but isn't (as featured on QI) I was under the impression that if equipment was being used which was capable of receiving the tv signal (in your example a freeview box), the fee had to be paid, including a colour licence required to watch your own recorded content on a black and white tv, the video player receives and records in colour even if you can't see it.

Well that's wrong. The TV license isn't about what equipment you own. It's only for how you use it. Otherwise merely having an internet connection would also require a TV license. As I said it's nothing to do with the transmittable medium but what you do with the equipment on your end of the transmission.

As for my using freeview for radio example I actually plagaurised that example from TV Licensing themselves. :rotfl:

Conor_3

brightonman123 wrote: »

so, if you have an old (non freeview/digitised) box by the time the big swutcheroo comes along, i am thinking that as there is no signal to receive anymore, the need for a licence is debi=unked.

i am going to regret this when i sover upm for sure..

Yeah you are. Your TV licence pays for BBC, not for analogue transmissions but is actually worded as receiving TV channels, regardless of medium so for example, to view live BBC on the internet, you need to hold a TV licence.

moonrakerz

superscaper wrote: »

You could have a TV connected to a freeview box which is connected to a TV aerial and if you only use it to listen to digital radio then you do NOT need a license. So the rubbish also being spouted about having to have the TV not connected to receiving equipment is just that, rubbish!

Be careful ! I am afraid that you could well be the one spouting rubbish here !

If you are receiving radio through a television either directly or through a set top box then you do need a TV licence. You only escape the need for a licence if the equipment producing the audio is not capable of producing video as well.
The logo on your TV screen saying "Radio 1", or what ever, is still classed as "television" !

Could I quote from TVL's website ?

"Do I need a TV Licence?

You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, digital box, DVD or video recorder, PC, laptop or mobile phone to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV.

If you use a digital box with a hi-fi system or another device that can only be used to produce sounds and can't display TV programmes, and you don't install or use any other TV receiving equipment, you don't need a TV Licence."

BUT - as usual, TVL have got part of this wrong: you can still "install AND use any other TV receiving equipment" - provided you don't watch or record live TV on it.