TV Licensing [Removed]

Nick_C

Anthorn wrote: »

Do I really need to keep on repeating myself to prove that what I say is true.

No. You need to stop giving advice which is incorrect and unhelpful.

You need to do some research which will quickly demonstrate that you are completely and utterly wrong.

Then you should help other forum users by deleting the misleading comments that you have posted.

silverwhistle

Oh gawd.

In the past I have taught English, with infinite patience, to kids with dyslexia. I admire the infinite patience with which Cornucopia responds, in detail, to misleading posters on here. A word also for ValiantSon in their attempts to convey accurate information.

I am getting older and less patient, so when I read this

I have already demonstrated exhaustively my position which is based on common knowledge.

I just despair and give up and realise that the democratisation of internet forums from when I first started in the early 90s has not been a universally positive step.


I speak as someone who watched the football tonight but has never owned a colour TV. There will probably be someone on here whose brain is exploding and will be telling me to buy a licence.



Pretty certain the pub on whose big screens I watched the game has a licence, mind..


I have a smart phone and a tablet. Now I'm certain both bits of equipment could show TV via the iplayer, and according to one poster on here I should, accordingly, have a licence. But I don't watch iplayer and hence nor do I have a licence.


I could say more but my thoughts are verging on the offensive so I shall desist..

Xbigman

I think Anthorn has miss understood the concept of 'installing' tv equipment. It includes plugging in an aerial and tuning it in. If you do neither of those a tv is not 'installed' and you don't need a licence.


Darren

Cornucopia

The official definition of the need for a Licence is (as has already been posted and referenced) is this:-

You need a Licence if you:-

- Watch or record TV broadcasts that have been transmitted by traditional means (Terrestrial, Satellite or Cable TV) to the UK(*).

- Watch an Internet streamed version of the above that is streamed simultaneously (near enough) with the above.

- Watch/download BBC programs using BBC iPlayer.


Nothing else requires a Licence.

In terms of squaring that with the somewhat convoluted legislation, my take is that a Licence is required to install and use "TV receiving equipment", and "TV receiving equipment" is defined as TV equipment used for reception of broadcasts. It's a little circular, and it's never been explained to me why it is like that, but presumably its complexity is what has lead the Government and the BBC to paraphrase it for the benefit of the Public.

(*) The scope of the Licence being confined to UK-receivable broadcasts is my reading of the legislation, but TVL say it is any broadcast, worldwide. This relates solely to the reception of live streamed broadcasts from outside the UK.

DUTR

boliston wrote: »

Surely this is like saying you need a driving licence if you have the capability to drive, even if you don't drive.

Not exactly, many know how to physically operate a car, you get a driving license after taking the required test demonstrating competency, in which case the holder would have to apply for it.
TV license is different.

Cornucopia

I would say that the TV Licence and Driving Licence are analogous to the extent that a Driving Licence is a Licence to drive a car, and is not required merely to buy one or possess one.

One of the reasons why the perpetuation of the misconceptions evidenced in this thread is so disappointing, is because BBC-TVL are not particularly effective or adept in their own communications on the TV Licence (and if they don't do it, who will?) Despite being a world-scale communications company, much of their communication is poorly written with both clumsy, ambiguous wording and apparent lack of familiarity with the technical nature of some of the subject matter. Where communications are sent to individual members of the Public, there is a tendency to wilful misinformation about legal rights, and inappropriately threatening language.

Nick_C

Isn't part of the problem that at one time you needed a license simply to own a TV, and some people don't realise that the law has changed?

Cornucopia

Nick_C wrote: »

Isn't part of the problem that at one time you needed a license simply to own a TV, and some people don't realise that the law has changed?

I'm not sure that it did. With apologies for the impermeability of mid-20th Century legalese, here is the original 1949 Wireless Telegraphy Act, which was the precursor of our Communications Act.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1949/54/pdfs/ukpga_19490054_en.pdf

AFAICT, it too regulates the use of equipment, and not its possession.

I think the Public misconception arises because before the arrival of VCRs and the first Videogames, there wasn't any real alternative use for TVs other than reception of broadcasts.

The modern legislation is now 15 years old, so I'd expect most people to be familiar with the concepts (unless, of course, the BBC was minded not to communicate properly with the Public).

ValiantSon

Nick_C wrote: »

Isn't part of the problem that at one time you needed a license simply to own a TV, and some people don't realise that the law has changed?

Ownership of a television has never required a licence, but as Cornucopia says, before the introduction of home videos there was no point in having a TV except to watch broadcast television, which did require a licence.

The first licences were radio licences, introduced in 1904 under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904 (the licences were suspended during the First World War and it was required that receiving equipment be dismantled for the duration). This was replaced by the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1924. The radio licences continued until 1946 and covered reception of television broadcasts on the BBC's service between 1936 and 1939. Television broadcasts were suspended for the duration of the Second World War. TV Licences were introduced in 1946 and included the right to receive radio broadcasts (although the separate radio licence continued until 1971).

The Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949 is not the original legislation (as shown above), and is, rather an update to the 1924 Act, which updated the 1904 Act. This too was updated by the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1967. In terms of licensing, the Communication Act, 2003 was the next significant change, although in 1991 the BBC took over responsibility for the administration of television licensing, under the Broadcasting Act, 1990, it having previously been the responsibility of the Post Office, since the introduction of licences in 1904 (in 2002 the BBC awarded Capita with a contract to manage the system). The Communications (Television Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 2016 (an order in council) is the latest amendment.

At no time has it ever been a requirement to purchase a licence to own receiving equipment, but it has to install that equipment for the purposes of receiving broadcast signals.

Nick_C

Some real expertise here. Thanks both.

What makes MSE such a valuable resource is people like you taking the time and trouble to share your knowledge. I learn something new most days!