Followed Tv license rules

Mickey666

uk1 said:

pphillips said:

uk1 said:

pphillips said:

uk1 said:

pphillips said:

Cornucopia said:

uk1 said:

I’ll ask again.

Do you know as a fact that Sky provided the statement voluntarily?

I imagine that we don't really know, and what does "voluntary" mean in this context, anyway?

TVL would have asked whether there was a contract in place at the address, and Sky would have said yes.   I'm not convinced that personal data would have been compromised in that exchange.

I believe that in this case the evidence provided by Sky was to confirm that a TV programme service had been accessed at that address.

Do you know whether it was by way of a court order?

Probably not, unless they want a witness to give an expert opinion, the court's permission isn't required.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/exemptions/

Just to clarify, the McNamara case was prosecuted at least 20 years ago and data protection laws have changed a lot since then. So are you saying that nowadays, Sky cannot disclose this information?

  Thanks, that explains it.

In a nutshell, yes Sky would be breaking the law if they simply disclosed ANY customer related information without an order, or the permsission of the customer. or being wholly 100% satisfied that an exemption exists.  That wasn't true 20 years ago.  I promise you that today Sky knows this and would be doing everything to avoid an investigation or fine with the terrible reputational damage for a breach. 

I'd think so too . . . which is why a court order would likely be required to force them to disclose such information, which begs the question would a court grant such an order without some strong evidence from TVL that an offence has been committed?  And without confirmation from Sky (in this example) that the service exists at the unlicenced property, how would they convince the court?  

The whole TV licencing and BBC funding system is a mess.  Everyone knows it's a mess but successive governments have shied away from doing anything about it, presumably because none of the alternatives are more desirable.  Perhaps the current BBC/Bashir/Diana saga will prompt some real review of BBC funding?

uk1

Mickey666 said:

uk1 said:

pphillips said:

uk1 said:

pphillips said:

uk1 said:

pphillips said:

Cornucopia said:

uk1 said:

I’ll ask again.

Do you know as a fact that Sky provided the statement voluntarily?

I imagine that we don't really know, and what does "voluntary" mean in this context, anyway?

TVL would have asked whether there was a contract in place at the address, and Sky would have said yes.   I'm not convinced that personal data would have been compromised in that exchange.

I believe that in this case the evidence provided by Sky was to confirm that a TV programme service had been accessed at that address.

Do you know whether it was by way of a court order?

Probably not, unless they want a witness to give an expert opinion, the court's permission isn't required.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/exemptions/

Just to clarify, the McNamara case was prosecuted at least 20 years ago and data protection laws have changed a lot since then. So are you saying that nowadays, Sky cannot disclose this information?

  Thanks, that explains it.

In a nutshell, yes Sky would be breaking the law if they simply disclosed ANY customer related information without an order, or the permsission of the customer. or being wholly 100% satisfied that an exemption exists.  That wasn't true 20 years ago.  I promise you that today Sky knows this and would be doing everything to avoid an investigation or fine with the terrible reputational damage for a breach. 

I'd think so too . . . which is why a court order would likely be required to force them to disclose such information, which begs the question would a court grant such an order without some strong evidence from TVL that an offence has been committed?  And without confirmation from Sky (in this example) that the service exists at the unlicenced property, how would they convince the court?  

The whole TV licencing and BBC funding system is a mess.  Everyone knows it's a mess but successive governments have shied away from doing anything about it, presumably because none of the alternatives are more desirable.  Perhaps the current BBC/Bashir/Diana saga will prompt some real review of BBC funding?

Hi, ... and good morning.

There are legalities and business pragmatics and neither of the two indicate a potential willingness of Sky to assist TVL unless absolutely compelled to against it's will and there's no other option.  They would need to be dragged into court having done everything it can to resist. I promise you that in that type of battle TVL have no hope and Sky would win. All of current consumer legislation is heavily weighed against this

Sky are both unwilling business non-revenue partners and at the same time aggressive competitors of the BBC.  In an unwell-ordered environment the Sky box duplicates only Beeb services that are already on the TV so the Beeb doesn't really add any revenue opportunity to Sky they simply have customers who are often unwilling to fund the Beeb but grudgingly have to.  On one hand they will be campaigning to remove the licence fee as it helps both destroys a competitor and removes unfair competition and at the same time potentially releases household spend for Sky revenue streaming services.  The notion that Sky would volunteer to go to court and assist the Beeb with the collection of licence fees even without DPA is obviously nutty.  And if  TVL at this moment had such exemption authority they would simply compel Sky to provide all of it's customer database of all customers from which it could start a much richer and lucrative fishing process.  And they haven't have they?!

And if in the wholly unlikely event that Sky were compelled to routinely provide such evidence how might that play out amongst Sky customers?  Sky couldn't care less if their customers have TV licences.  They would like it if they don't.  It diverts disposable cash that they would like. So if Sky customers knew that by being a Sky customer that Sky would tell TVL about it's customers it would in Sky's view reduce customer uptake and loyalty.

In the old days, when you bought a tv the retailer had to tell licensing.  Can’t imagine Sky agreeing to a system where they mirrored that process and were compelled to inform TVL of their customers. 

The whole idea that Sky would today willingly go to court and/or provide TVL with any type of data to help the Beeb collect revenue from Sky customers is obviously nutty.

Freddie_archer

It could be a neighbor is using your wi-fi linked to their iplayer device - they may have a TV license - yes a fishing expedition, ignore. 

Cornucopia

One of the aggravating factors in the sentencing guidelines for TV Licence evasion is whether someone has a Pay TV subscription.   In the first instance that could be assessed by admission during interview, but I can also imagine Pay TV providers being asked for confirmation even now.   Personally, I don't see this as particularly scandalous.

What has changed since 2002 is that (a) Courts are less likely to assume that installed equipment was supportive of an allegation of evasion because of the much wider range of uses for which such equipment can be put (see also Rudd), and (b) pay TV subscriptions themselves could conceivably relate to licence-free viewing i.e. of catch-up and "box sets" content.  

I'd still recommend that anyone wanting to view without a Licence should ditch Sky or VM services and get a more catch-up oriented service, though the lines are becoming more blurred now that many of the catch-up players also offer live-streamed broadcast channels.

Cornucopia

I can confirm that the BBC Account functions correctly in that it allows un-checked access to BBC Sounds and also to S4C catch-up without querying whether a Licence is held.

Once you try to play BBC TV programs, the Licence challenge comes up.

That was my experience, anyway. 

Scv1

Hi everyone I am taking time to read through everyone’s comments, thank you so much for replying. There’s a lot of conflicting comments so need to get my head around what to do. 

Mickey666

Cornucopia said:

One of the aggravating factors in the sentencing guidelines for TV Licence evasion is whether someone has a Pay TV subscription.   In the first instance that could be assessed by admission during interview, but I can also imagine Pay TV providers being asked for confirmation even now.   Personally, I don't see this as particularly scandalous.

What has changed since 2002 is that (a) Courts are less likely to assume that installed equipment was supportive of an allegation of evasion because of the much wider range of uses for which such equipment can be put (see also Rudd), and (b) pay TV subscriptions themselves could conceivably relate to licence-free viewing i.e. of catch-up and "box sets" content.  

I'd still recommend that anyone wanting to view without a Licence should ditch Sky or VM services and get a more catch-up oriented service, though the lines are becoming more blurred now that many of the catch-up players also offer live-streamed broadcast channels.

Agreed, although "Pay TV" is a confusing description of all the subscription services out there. Netflix, for example, is a subscription service for which no TV licence is required because it offers no live broadcasts (at present!) whereas others do. The internet has blown the BBC funding model out of the water and has highlighted the inherent unfairness of forcing people who never watch BBC content to fund the BBC. There are no longer any technical reasons for this and the whole issue is now a political hot potato then successive governments have shied away from - probably quite rightly because it's difficult to see a widely agreeable solution.

uk1

Cornucopia said:
  In the first instance that could be assessed by admission during interview, but I can also imagine Pay TV providers being asked for confirmation even now.   Personally, I don't see this as particularly scandalous.

Good Morning .....

(a) There would be no problem for TVL to ask Pay TV providers for confirmation but imho ....

(b) it WOULD imho be scandalous and obviously self-destructive if they complied needlessly from EVERY aspect.

It would be imho against the law to disclose in these circumstances; it would avoidably greatly assist a competitor it wishes to see dead ; and would therefore cause extreme reputational, confidence and consequential revenue damage if it did  otherwise.

The key consideration would be from an ICO perspective, the question “Would a subscriber to Sky (or others) reasonably expect their personal information being disclosed by Sky to TVL for  the purposes  of TV licensing compliance without seeking their prior agreement ....”   and even hidden terms in the agreement wouldn’t be enforceable.

Anyway, ......

Cornucopia

Scv1 said:

Hi everyone I am taking time to read through everyone’s comments, thank you so much for replying. There’s a lot of conflicting comments so need to get my head around what to do. 

I'm not sure there's that much conflict over the basic rules to follow.  

To summarise:-

- You need a TV Licence to watch/record TV channels received via traditional means (Satellite, Cable TV and Terrestrial).

- You also need a TV Licence if you watch those same channels as they are live-streamed via the Internet.

- You also need a TV Licence to watch/download BBC TV programs from iPlayer.

If you never do those three things you don't need a Licence.   That gives you access to commercial catch-up and on-demand services (whether paid-for or ad-funded).   You can also watch BBC programs as/when they appear on platforms other than iPlayer (for example on UKTV player).

Also...

- There is no general exemption for battery-powered equipment (that's an extension to an existing Licence).

- There are special rules for caravans, boats, second homes, retirement homes, hotels, HMOs and lodgers, and if that affects you, you need to check for the detail.

Cornucopia

uk1 said:

Good Morning .....

(a) There would be no problem for TVL to ask Pay TV providers for confirmation but imho ....

(b) it WOULD imho be scandalous and obviously self-destructive if they complied needlessly from EVERY aspect.

It would be imho against the law to disclose in these circumstances; it would avoidably greatly assist a competitor it wishes to see dead ; and would therefore cause extreme reputational, confidence and consequential revenue damage if it did  otherwise. 

I'm not sure about any of that but we are way off-topic.   There are many (so many) issues with the way the TV Licence works and is enforced, but IMHO this is not one of them.