Cancel TV licence to save £160

pphillips

Mickey666 said:

pphillips said:

Mickey666 said:

Yes, so if they catch you watching live TV without a licence then fair enough.  But to insinuate guilt just because an aerial is plugged in is plainly against any sense of natural justice.  This whole licence/regulations/law thing is no longer fit for purpose and needs reform ASAP.

The legislation is a real headache to read but I think they are designed to make it easier to convict, same as with speeding. Doesn't matter that you didn't know you were speeding or didn't intent to speed or whatever the excuse, you are guilty simply because you were driving above the speed limit. In TV Licensing terms, it's is aimed at convicting those who have installed what the regulations call "a TV receiver" but to the exclusion of devices that connect to the internet.

It's not the same as speeding at all.  If it was then EVERY driver in the country could be fined for having a vehicle CAPABLE of breaking the speed limit.  Speeding fines require proof of speeding - which seems perfectly reasonable to me.  TV licencing legislation seems to be based around having the capability rather than proof of an actual offence. It's clearly contrary to natural justice, presumably because it's so difficult to catch an offender in the act.

I do understand what you're saying but first of all I was using speeding as an example of a strict liability offence and secondly, I still think that breaking TV licensing law requires a positive act. Whether that positive act is installing a TV receiver or watching a live TV channel over the internet, doesn't really make that much difference. I'm not persuaded that it's contrary to natural justice to make it easier for TV Licensing to prosecute offenders.

Cornucopia

The issue of capability with the TV Licence evasion offence is complicated (much more so than with Speeding etc.)

The offence is defined as strict liability, as above, which means that there is no requirement to show intent.  If you are caught that's sufficient to prove the offence... in theory.

Where it gets complicated is in two areas:-

1)   TVL have never had a policy of capturing independent physical evidence of evasion (say a video of an offender's TV showing BBC TV).   Instead, they use their TVL178 paper form.   This further complicates things by being a hybrid document (in PACE terms) of record of interview, interviewer's notes and interviewer's witness statement.  This is arguably outside the terms of PACE, but possibly more importantly, beyond the likely level of understanding of members of the Public (or, indeed, TVL staff).

That document can edge into questions of capability as part of the "confession" it records.

2)  Traditionally, the Courts have accepted evidence of capability for reception in evasion cases.   That is not based on the legislation, but on the Magistrates' responsibility to determine the facts.  (If someone has a full Sky setup with dish, box, TV, and TV subscription then it's fairly likely that they are evading the Licence).   Now that LF evasion has disappeared into Single Justice Procedure closed sessions there is very little information coming out on the way TVL cases are handled, though.

brewerdave

Once FTTP is rolled out more widely, more and more people will get their TV via the internet rather than aerial or dish - that's the time when someone in power will have to grasp the nettle and sort out BBC financing for the future.

Cornucopia

Mickey666 said:

Good summary.  So basically, because it’s so difficult to actually prove the offence TVL resort to intimidation and entrapment aided and abetted by magistrates accepting circumstantial evidence to convict.  

I’m not condoning ‘getting away with it’ simply because it’s difficult to prove but I am suggesting it’s an example of how unfit for purpose the whole licensing system really is and why, among other things, it needs urgent reform.  Bending the legal principle of innocent until proved guilty beyond all reasonable doubt is not, in my view, a good practice and there would be outcry if applied to other offences.  What next, - ‘you’re a dodgy looking bloke with £100 in your pocket and that old lady around the corner was just mugged - it must have been you’.

Yes - it's all a bit of a mess.   

What surprises me is that it has been tolerated by both defendants and the authorities for so long.   Part of it is the issue of proving the offence, and that then means that the evidence in most TVL cases is based on confession.   

I've asked defendants many, many times how they came to confess, whether they knew they were confessing, whether they were able to link (in their minds) the exact nature of the alleged offence and the confession but there is usually no response or a confused response.   I can see how they might be embarrassed (either by the offence, or in the innocent cases by being tricked) but fundamentally the law in letter and spirit is based on access to rights and transparency, and it's difficult to see how either of those are being properly honoured here.

On the positive side, false allegations and overtly rogue behaviour by TVL staff seem to have reduced substantially from where they were a few years ago.   Now, I suspect that most TVL cases are just (i.e. the person really was evading they Licence, even if they didn't know), although proper PACE principles are still not being applied, IMHO. 

brewerdave

Mickey666 said:

No need for FTTP.  I have no aerial or dish and have been using a smartTV for all my viewing for years and it worked fine with just a 6Mbps broadband connection.  When BT upgraded our village a few years ago to FTTC I was able to increase to 29Mbps but can honestly say it has made very little difference to me in practice, though I accept that hardcore gamers and people downloading loads of movies and other huge files need such speeds (and more).

Surprised at that; my new Samsung TV says that it requires 10Mb minimum to use smart functions. Also I've found that some services  (eg BT Sport HD) buffer if the speed is much less than 10Mb.
I accept that your experience has been different , but the point I was trying to make was that in modern households with maybe 3 or 4 TVs in use at any one time FTTP will free the users from dependence on aerial or dish by allowing multiple HD/UHD streams.
As to policing by IP address it has been tried in the past with varying success - but with many of the security software suites offering VPN access now ,can't see that working - if they want the public to pay for BBC access, then the fairest way is to put it behind a paywall of some kind OR pay for it out of general taxation.

Cornucopia

For most households, standard fibre (say 35Mbps) is quite sufficient for an HD/4K stream for the main TV, a couple of 720p video streams for laptops and the standard background traffic for browsing, etc.

If there's gaming, then maybe increase that to double-speed fibre (70Mbps) or low-end VM (100Mbps).   

VM has a bad habit of vastly over-selling their higher speeds, which most households do not need now or for the foreseeable future.  

neilbaldwin70

Interesting discussion. We stopped paying ours because we don't watch terretrial TV (our actual TV is just used as a computer monitor these days) and we don't watch iPlayer. Started getting TVL letters but can't decide if it's better to ignore or claim we don't need a licence. Surely in these times of social distancing they won't be allowed, or we can refuse a physical vist from them?

pphillips

neilbaldwin70 said:

Interesting discussion. We stopped paying ours because we don't watch terretrial TV (our actual TV is just used as a computer monitor these days) and we don't watch iPlayer. Started getting TVL letters but can't decide if it's better to ignore or claim we don't need a licence. Surely in these times of social distancing they won't be allowed, or we can refuse a physical vist from them?

Also the recent Twitter #defundtheBBC campaign has really taken off with thousands of people cancelling their TV licences so I imagine TV Licensing are pretty stretched, making it even less likely you will get a visit.

pphillips

Mickey666 said:

brewerdave said:

Mickey666 said:

No need for FTTP.  I have no aerial or dish and have been using a smartTV for all my viewing for years and it worked fine with just a 6Mbps broadband connection.  When BT upgraded our village a few years ago to FTTC I was able to increase to 29Mbps but can honestly say it has made very little difference to me in practice, though I accept that hardcore gamers and people downloading loads of movies and other huge files need such speeds (and more).

Surprised at that; my new Samsung TV says that it requires 10Mb minimum to use smart functions. Also I've found that some services  (eg BT Sport HD) buffer if the speed is much less than 10Mb.
I accept that your experience has been different , but the point I was trying to make was that in modern households with maybe 3 or 4 TVs in use at any one time FTTP will free the users from dependence on aerial or dish by allowing multiple HD/UHD streams.
As to policing by IP address it has been tried in the past with varying success - but with many of the security software suites offering VPN access now ,can't see that working - if they want the public to pay for BBC access, then the fairest way is to put it behind a paywall of some kind OR pay for it out of general taxation.

Mine is a fairly old Samsung and I don't recall reading any minimum spec.  I accept that 6Mbps is probably right at the low end of requirement and to be fair it's the only smart TV in the house and there are no kids running online games at the same time, which could well cause problems.  I agree that FTTP would be a game-changer though and should make bandwidth issues a thing of the past (for a fair while anyway), it's just a shame the roll-out is so slow in rural areas.  Having said that, with FTTC now able to provide upwards of 30Mbps there will be many households that simply don't need FTTP, which gives the marketing people something of a challenge.  Bit like selling a car that can do 100mph and then trying to persuade people to spend a lot more for one that can do 150mph.  What's the point?  Yes there will always be a relatively few people that would go for it but the vast majority would not because there's simply no need for it.

Fair point about policing the TV licence by IP address tracing - yes, that could result in all manner of complications.  But given the options of a paywall or funding through general taxation, I'd vote for a payway simply on the basis that I see no reason for the government to force everyone in the country to pay for a public broadcasting service.  Surely the only truly fair option is to offer people the choice?

Absolutely and a paywall is the only way that Freeview and Freesat will actually become free.
Consumer choice is the only option in 2020. If I don't have to pay Netflix to watch Disney+ then why do I have to pay the BBC to watch Sky? Regardless of what anyone thinks of Sky, the principal is simply unfair.

Regarding FTTP, I have 50mpbs broadband and have no problem with browsing on multiple devices and running two smart TVs all at the same time.

Nick_C

Several problems with the form to advise the BBC that you don't need a licence.

The declarations;

1 - "I don't watch or record programmes as they're being shown on TV" - but I do.  At my brother's.  At the pub (when it re-opens).  In the waiting room at the car dealership when I'm there for a service.  In hotels.  etc etc.  

2 - "I don't watch or record programmes from abroad as they're being shown on TV or live on an online TV service."  Again, I do.  I watch Sky News live when I'm on holiday abroad.

"If you cannot confirm all the statements above, you'll need to buy a TV Licence."   Simply not true.  But without giving false answers, I can't complete the form to say I no longer need a TV Licence.

The BBC don't need to know the reason why I don't need a TV license.  What I do legally in my home is my business and no one else's.  But without giving a reason I cannot complete the form.

Plus if you do complete the form, you appear to be agreeing that the BBC have the right to send people round to check up on you.  I don't want to agree to that.  "We may visit the address.  We visit some addresses to check that the occupants do not need a TV Licence"

"Your Declaration can only last up to two years" - Why?  Any declaration I make lasts until I die or rescind it.

I don't want the BBC storing my name, phone number, and email address.  If I'm not a customer, they don't need that data.