TV reception and the law

Cornucopia

Yes, it's made up.

But a lot of TVL bureaucracy is made up.

Nilrem

Cornucopia wrote: »

Yes, it's made up.

But a lot of TVL bureaucracy is made up.

So is most bureaucracy...often because the actual laws that underpin it don't go into the full detail of every step of the process

With regards to the time I suspect it's to rule out 99% of TV programmes still running by the end of that 2 hours, so the chances of confusion over what is "live" and what is catch up/on demand can be absolutely minimised.

poppasmurf_bewdley

HD channels on the Sky satellite all suffer from a delay of about a second, compared with normal SD broadcasts. As evidence, try syncing a HD channel with the Greenwich Time Signal or Big Ben chimes.

So your little plan to avoid paying the TV Licence Fee is a none starter, or everyone with HD would be claiming they didn't have to pay.

Cornucopia

Nilrem wrote: »

So is most bureaucracy...often because the actual laws that underpin it don't go into the full detail of every step of the process

I'm not sure about that. If the public are required to do something, the law is generally involved for three reasons: to make it a legal requirement (if that is necessary), to specify the requirement so that it is compatible and consistent with other legislation, and to avoid confusion in the minds of the public or the enforcers as to what is actually required and why.

In my experience, TVL rules are uniquely distant from the relevant legislation. By all means compare them with the conceptually similar SORN regulations for vehicles. Specifically neither the 83 million letters, the 3.8 million visits or the imposition for legally licence free people to participate in the bureaucracy are mentioned, not even in summary.

That situation perhaps worked when the licence fee was the responsibility of the Home Office and the Post Office, but since the responsibility passed to the BBC, it is extremely problematic because the BBC is a mere broadcaster and because there is a fundamental conflict of interest.

With regards to the time I suspect it's to rule out 99% of TV programmes still running by the end of that 2 hours, so the chances of confusion over what is "live" and what is catch up/on demand can be absolutely minimised.

I'm sure that is the reason.

I'm not sure I trust a process, though, in which an allegation of watching live TV broadcasts might be made without the forensically precise matching of the alleged offending material with the broadcast stream to within a reasonable margin e.g. 2 minutes.