TV Licence cancellation

Knackeredoldbat

wiogs wrote: »

Being "capable of" is not the same as "watching"

If I watch live TV on my computer via iplayer for example I need a licence. If I only watch catch up TV using the iplayer I don't require one, despite the fact that I have the capability so to do.

That was my understanding. I have done some research into this and just wanted confirmation that I was interpreting things correctly.

I haven't just picked out the post that agrees with me, cos I'm still not too sure about the license refund but a couple of posts have said I'm wrong without really explaining why.

I'll go through the link again.

Thanks

Knackeredoldbat

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I'll leave you to it.

This is just yet another TV licence thread which will just go around in circles like all the others have done..

I see you've been here a long time..... I was asking for an explanation and would've appreciated help rather than snitty remarks.

Thanks anyway.

Retrogamer

wiogs wrote: »

Being "capable of" is not the same as "watching"

If I watch live TV on my computer via iplayer for example I need a licence. If I only watch catch up TV using the iplayer I don't require one, despite the fact that I have the capability so to do.

There's a part in the legislation that i can't remember exactly what it says, but it allows for prosecution when someone isn't watching live TV but has hardware connected that allow the TV to receive live broadcasts.
There have been successful prosecutions brought forward with it.

It was introduced to allow prosecution of people not caught watching live TV, but caught with an aerial connected to the TV set.

JJ_Egan

Its in the news this week MP petition to move from this licence fee in its current set up .

Mr Bridgen played a key role in convincing the Government to allow an independent review into whether the non-payment of the licence fee should be a civil offence, rather than a criminal one, after figures revealed 107 people had been jailed for payment avoidance in just two years

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/535864/Up-to-50-Tory-MPs-tear-up-BBC-licence-fee

Cornucopia

Knackeredoldbat wrote: »

I'll be getting rid of sky in the new year. I thought that as I pay my tv license by DD I paid 6months ahead. Is this not correct? I distinctly remember when first paying my DD it was double for the first 6 months.

Yes - the licence fee is refundable in whole quarters, and you will also get back any advance payments you have already made. If you apply before the end of January, you should get back the last quarter of the current licence + maybe 2 payments towards the next licence = £60.

If correct then if I don't pay any more DD (paid Nov 1st, cancelled from now on) then I'm covered until at least the date on my license which is end April 2015.

Or you can do that.

But, if I get rid of live TV from the new year then I should be due a refund of my license for feb, march and april. Or am I not interpreting things correctly?

Should be.

Cornucopia

Retrogamer wrote: »

There's a part in the legislation that i can't remember exactly what it says, but it allows for prosecution when someone isn't watching live TV but has hardware connected that allow the TV to receive live broadcasts.
There have been successful prosecutions brought forward with it.

It was introduced to allow prosecution of people not caught watching live TV, but caught with an aerial connected to the TV set.

It's more complicated than that. BBC/TVL policy is that people are prosecuted (sometimes) if they are watching or recording TV broadcasts. There is no mention of capability on the TVL website, and most prosecutions are based on confessions (more or less willingly given), anyway.

There is the potential in the law to also prosecute for "installation for use for receiving broadcasts", but that is much more complicated to prove.

Obviously someone who wants to dispense with a TV Licence needs to make the necessary adjustments to their AV kit, but you can still have a de-tuned TV without a licence and use it as a monitor for DVDs or Catch-up.

I've not heard of a Freesat box being used for a legally licence-free configuration - can it work just for Catch-up with no satellite feed? Have a look at Youview (yes, I know that has built-in Freeview, but it can be disabled), Now TV, Roku, Chromecast, Amazon Fire TV, depending on what services you are interested in and how much you want to spend. Most of these options would be cheaper than Freesat, and also "tick the box" in the minds of simple inspecting folk of being a non-broadcast device. If you already have an XBox or PS3/4, you probably already have the capability.

As for TVL, plenty has been written about how to handle them. To start with, they have very limited legal powers... and it all goes from there.

Cornucopia

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I think you'll struggle to get any refund with that set-up in place. In addition, I think you'll also be harassed by TV licensing enforcement.

What is it about this issue that brings out the nay-sayers?

Whilst I wouldn't condone LF evasion, the TVL call centre have no idea what equipment people have in their homes.

And TVL door-knockers hassle everyone without a licence - that is the problem with them. (Hopefully a problem that is about to get fixed ).

robin58

Wouldn't this whole discussion be pointless if they decide to change the viewing rules of watching TV via any equipment?

There are talks of things going that way.

Cornucopia

robin58 wrote: »

Wouldn't this whole discussion be pointless if they decide to change the viewing rules of watching TV via any equipment?

That is the rule now. It's already barely enforceable, and the BBC/TVL have already backed away from trying to enforce mobile usage.

If you mean using a TV for any purpose... because that would be unfair? And potentially unenforceable.

By far the fairest, most progressive, most sensible option is to make the BBC a subscription service. I don't understand why people are opposed to this (is it the fear that when people have a choice, they might not actually value the BBC as much as the propaganda suggests?)

There are talks of things going that way.

Talks? Who is talking, and why haven't they asked me what I think?

Kurtis_Blue

Cornucopia wrote: »

I don't understand why people are opposed to this (is it the fear that when people have a choice, they might not actually value the BBC as much as the propaganda suggests?)

So clearly you do understand very well why people are opposed to it. The viewing figures are very clear, the viewing choice of the masses is moronic.
There are lots of things funded by society that if we could opt in/out would become no longer viable, the BBC is just one of the cheaper ones.

Public broadcast is needed, it just needs to be better, a lot better.