Dont need a TV licence

Cornucopia

The situation is this:-

The Licence is for watching/recording TV broadcasts (and from 1 Sep, using iPlayer). So, the OP does not need a Licence.

However, there is more to it than that. If they want to be safe from spurious accusations(*) from TV Licensing, they need to ensure that their TV equipment is consistent with their Licence status and how they claim they watch video content (if at all).

So, in the case of Sky, an old satellite dish on the wall is okay, but there should be no subscription and no set-top box.

In the case of Freeview, an aerial on the roof is okay, but there should be no aerial fly-leads near the TV, and no aerial connections to any TVs or set-top boxes, etc. TVs should ideally be detuned, if possible. It is technically feasible to use a Freeview TV to listen to the radio without a Licence, but I would strongly recommend using Radio iPlayer or some other means instead.

(*) There would be no spurious allegations if people didn't speak with TV Licensing or let them into their homes, and there is no legal obligation to do either of these things. TV Licensing is a rogue organisation, with various rogue members of staff, and it is best to have as little to do with them as possible.

Cornucopia

teddysmum wrote: »

Years ago, the rules did say that you needed a licence if you had equipment capable of receiving a broadcast,( even if it wasn't used). I don't know when they were changed, though.

The current rules date from 2003.

Cornucopia

Retrogamer wrote: »

There are a few people that have been prosecuted in court IIRC when they had a TV aerial connected but weren't actually caught watching live TV.

Very few TV Licensing cases are based on catching evaders actually watching TV broadcasts. The vast majority are based on confessions, obtained by both fair means and foul, and therein lies the (main) challenge to Justice that TV Licensing represents.

The judgement was set on the balance of probabilities IIRC however this confuses me somewhat because i think it was a criminal offense and not a civil offense.

It is a criminal offence, and therefore (theoretically) has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, in most TV Licensing cases, the accused person does not attend Court and loses by default, in which case the evidence is usually not considered beyond the basic allegation of an offence.

Unfortunately, our legal system incentivises people to plead Guilty irrespective of their guilt in order to ensure themselves of a shorter process and a lower fine. Strike 2 for Justice.

Cornucopia

JJ_Egan wrote: »

OP needs to post what the household intends to watch after October .

They already have: No TV, just YouTube clips.

They need to be aware that Youtube has live streamed content which potentially needs a Licence to view.

It also has BBC content that doesn't need a Licence, even after 1 Sep, because it is not iPlayer.

marleyboy

Wouldn't it be wonderful in this age of digital television and PPV, if you could switch off ALL BBC signals, rendering BBC signals as optional. I would drop them in a heartbeat.

PixelPound

Cornucopia wrote: »

They already have: No TV, just YouTube clips.

They need to be aware that Youtube has live streamed content which potentially needs a Licence to view.

It also has BBC content that doesn't need a Licence, even after 1 Sep, because it is not iPlayer.

A BBC spokesman gave The Guardian the following quote

“Fewer than 2% of households only watch catchup – and only those watching BBC iPlayer as part of their catchup and on-demand viewing will need to buy a licence from September. You will not need a TV licence to download or watch programmes on demand from other providers, such as YouTube, Netflix, ITV Hub, All 4 or Demand 5. All unlicensed households are being mailed and a publicity campaign will happen before 1 September.”

(the emboldening is my emphasis).

So no license for catch-up or on-demand Youtube content. I gather you were on about the live streaming aspect, but wasn't sure if you meant a license was needed for youtube due to that. The spokesman says a license isn't needed for on-demand youtube.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Because the BBC failed to make their service subscription only, by refusing to encrypt, we have to forced on us all the TV Tax, whether we watch their cooking channels or not.

Consider the fine for speeding, or an awareness course at £90 and the prosecutions carried out by the BBC with a fine of £1,000. No body ever killed someone for watching TV, yet a speeding driver can!

Scrap the TV Tax

Cornucopia

Yes, I have to agree: TV watching seems like such a ludicrously mundane activity to require permission from the State. The Licence itself is in dire need of abolition on that basis alone.

The Fee is also a problem, being the source of the fundamental conflict of interest between the BBC being the beneficiary of it, and its enforcer. That should never have been allowed (certainly not without significant protections in Law) and the BBC/TV Licensing have been found wanting in word, deed and ethics many, many times as a consequence.

The fine, however, is not £1000, it is the weaselly-worded "up to £1000". In reality, there is zero chance of anyone on a modest income being fined anything like that amount (£150 is the average). In Scotland, where the system is effectively decriminalised already, there is a fixed fine of £75, which places the offence some way below various motoring misdemeanours, as it should be.

Cornucopia

nic_c wrote: »

A BBC spokesman gave The Guardian the following quote
(the emboldening is my emphasis).

So no license for catch-up or on-demand Youtube content. I gather you were on about the live streaming aspect,

Where I specifically said "live streamed content", you mean?

...but wasn't sure if you meant a license was needed for youtube due to that.

No.

I'd already said in a previous post: "The Licence is for watching/recording TV broadcasts (and from 1 Sep, using iPlayer). So, the OP does not need a Licence".

However, your confusion reflects just how complex the new rules are. I can only hope that the BBC and others will rush forward with good quality, plentiful information for the Public, come the day, because at the moment the silence is deafening.

I won't bother hoping that the TVL operatives mind their behaviour, and treat the Public with respect, because I know that that is beyond them, and that their employer gives them "mixed messages" anyway.

I would strongly advise people not to enter into conversation with roaming TV Licensing operatives, especially if you believe you are in the right and don't need a Licence. They are on commission, and the paper-based prosecution process they use is entirely fallible and capable of beginning the prosecution process against innocent people.

Your quote, though shows the BBC using two conflicting "facts" in their PR, though. They have claimed that the "iPlayer loophole" is worth £150m in lost Licence receipts, implying that it accounts for just over 1 million Licences. But your quote says that 2% of households only use catch-up, and presumably those using iPlayer specifically will be a subset of that. 2% is around half a million households.

The BBC speaks with forked tongue.

Nilrem

Op if you decide to go TVL free disconnnect your Sky box from the satellite cable, Sky boxes record automatically* which would be enough for you to be done as the law covers viewing or recording.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

Because the BBC failed to make their service subscription only, by refusing to encrypt, we have to forced on us all the TV Tax, whether we watch their cooking channels or not.

Consider the fine for speeding, or an awareness course at £90 and the prosecutions carried out by the BBC with a fine of £1,000. No body ever killed someone for watching TV, yet a speeding driver can!

Scrap the TV Tax

A nice bit of misinformation.

The BBC don't set the legislation, the government does.
The BBC can't decide to encrypt, and doing so would mean they would by definition no longer be a PSB, they'd become like Sky or VM.

Also most TVL related fines are around £100, £1000 is the maximum, whilst the lowest speeding fine is around £100 (more if you go over certain speeds, have a history, etc - the maximum on motorways can go to over £2000).


*I'm assuming it's not an ancient one that has no Sky+ facilities.