TV Licence rant

Floss

Sorry, will go hide under my rock again....:p

reformedEffortMaker_2

hang on, based on what immortal_angel said above, does this mean if I paid for a year using direct debit I WOULD have received a full year, but because I paid cash I have been penalised? (ish)

Badger_Lady

Alfie_E wrote: »

For example, as has been pointed out before, a live stream of Mongolian yak racing should be ok, provided it isn’t also being relayed by Sky Sports

But is that fair? After all, Sky don't get the money from your licence..?

greektony

I was under the impression that you could own a TV which is used soley for videos/dvd/consoles without needing a TV licence if the TV wasnt tuned into any 'TV' channels. I have just bought a flat and have a TV there at the moment purely for that purpose.

Badger_Lady

TV_Licensing_Website wrote:

You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, set-top boxes, video or DVD recorders, computers or mobile phones to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV.

If you use a set-top 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.

Reference here - think you'd better get covered!

greektony

That is stupid. So you need a TV license even though I don't watch TV on it and no channels are tuned in and its not hooked up to an aerial????

That is frankly !!!!!!

Badger_Lady

Yup - always been the case, I believe.

scootw1

I think TV Licensing would have a hard time in court if you use a DVD player without using the TV if you don't have an aerial. It is the words "televlision receiving equipment" I would quote as without an aerial it is impossible to pick up TV channels.

As for the Halls of Residence, each room is supposed to have a licence. however, I believe that the TV licence people cannot enter your room without the permission of the warden so if she doesn't say yes you are okay.

Badger_Lady

scootw1 wrote: »

I think TV Licensing would have a hard time in court if you use a DVD player without using the TV if you don't have an aerial. It is the words "televlision receiving equipment" I would quote as without an aerial it is impossible to pick up TV channels.

Although I agree with your principles, how easy would it be for you to just unplug and hide your aerial?

Some people use set-top aerials which are small and cheap, some even use coathangers, and in some areas you can get some sort of reception with no external aerial at all.

Would this also mean that, if you have a rooftop aerial attached to the property, you would have to get it removed? What about rented properties?

The whole enforcement system is just to foggy and too complicated / unfair. The only way that they could realign this system is to do what Sky and others do - a fixed package of encrypted channels that can only be received by license-holders.

Who'd be happy if their BBC channels through Freeview were encrypted to non-licensed households? Who'd object to having some sort of viewing card that they can insert into their set top box?

Of course, this would be very expensive to set up, but so much easier and fairer to enforce.

pinkkaz

greektony wrote: »

I was under the impression that you could own a TV which is used soley for videos/dvd/consoles without needing a TV licence if the TV wasnt tuned into any 'TV' channels. I have just bought a flat and have a TV there at the moment purely for that purpose.

I think this is true, but that the TV licence site is deliberately misleading. If you go to http://www.tvlicensing.biz/ and then to "Info on TV licensing you can see what they say about it (although admittedly it isn't the most unbiased site in the world!)