TV Licence article Discussion

Cornucopia

Juxxize wrote: »

As for the last bit I've underlined it because I'm confused when is a lag / delay long enough that it is no longer classed as live TV ?? I've been looking all over for this information as regards to what is actually classed as 'live' TV .The whole subject of TV licensing is very confusing and I think the BBC make it as such so people are confused and just pay up

The BBC say that 2 hours is the "magic delay" whereby a licence is no longer required. That pretty much rules out any form of transmission lag (as you would expect).

They have also talked about not watching any part of a programme whilst any part of it is still being broadcast on the live streams.

In practice, those time limit are based upon a dubious interpretation of the law, and could be open to challenge in court. They owe more to ease of enforcement than an actual understanding of the legal requirements.

stockportshire

Just wanted to point out a couple of improvements that could be made to the article.

The BBC contracts out the collection of the fee to Capita, not to TV Licensing as stated in the article. TV Licensing is not a separate organisation from the BBC; it's just the name the BBC have trademarked to avoid using the BBC logo when collecting the fee. The BBC has been responsible for collecting the fee since 1991.

Also, retailers no longer ask for your address and report your purchase of a TV to the BBC. The law requiring that was repealed over the summer.

HTH

Buzby

schiff wrote: »

I 'watch' the day's news via Text. Under the previous Ceefax regime the text filled the whole screen. Under today's system I am obliged to be able to see a half-screen of what is currently showing on TV. I have always found it a great irritant. I would be very hard put to establish that I don't watch live TV in those circumstances.

I'm facing paying twice over for a licence for a second home and I think switching to not watching live TV (there anyway) would be no hardship.

You were very lucky - Ceefax TV (Teletext in proper parlance) required a full licence. There isn't even a 'grey' area you received the service and it was your choice not to view the supplied picture or sound. The same holds true for the new text services - viewing the 'picture' is not the arbiter.

Buzby

maxchristian wrote: »

Just wanted to point out a couple of improvements that could be made to the article.

The BBC contracts out the collection of the fee to Capita, not to TV Licensing as stated in the article. TV Licensing is not a separate organisation from the BBC; it's just the name the BBC have trademarked to avoid using the BBC logo when collecting the fee. The BBC has been responsible for collecting the fee since 1991.

Also, retailers no longer ask for your address and report your purchase of a TV to the BBC. The law requiring that was repealed over the summer.

HTH

The first part is still correct - the BBC department which enforces collection IS TV Licensing. This is outsourced currently to Crapita, but it's contract is regularly reviewed and can just as easily be switched to Regius or a myriad if sub-contractors. Knowing who the hired hand is useful background, but at the end of the day, your pursuer remains as a TV Licensing.

Buzby

Cornucopia wrote: »

The BBC say that 2 hours is the "magic delay" whereby a licence is no longer required. That pretty much rules out any form of transmission lag (as you would expect).
.

First time I have ever heard of this. It has always been 15 minutes (as defined). Interestingly, neither 15 or 120 minutes appear in any legislation within the Communications Act 2000.

As the BBC is responsible for its own enforcement, they may try to assert this, but it is not 'the Law'.

Interestingly, with the BBC launching +1 channels, this may have prompted the increase in times, but remains an aspiration, nothing more.

Cornucopia

Buzby wrote: »

First time I have ever heard of this. It has always been 15 minutes (as defined). Interestingly, neither 15 or 120 minutes appear in any legislation within the Communications Act 2000.

Where does the 15 mins come from?

As the BBC is responsible for its own enforcement, they may try to assert this, but it is not 'the Law'.

Quite - the same is true of much of what we could call "TV Licensing Lore".

Interestingly, with the BBC launching +1 channels, this may have prompted the increase in times, but remains an aspiration, nothing more.

Maybe - I can never tell with the BBC whether they are being shrewd or belligerent.

tinamac1

I have read your 24 points on having a tv license...however u state that u only need a license if u watch live tv....what I would like to know is if u tell them that this is the case how can they prove or disprove it??

Thank you...
Tina

[Deleted User]

+1 channels are still showing TV as it is broadcast so still needs a licence. That is like saying you don't need a licence to watch the EastEnders omnibus on a Sunday.

Like already mentioned, I personally don't bother with the TVL.

[Deleted User]

tinamac1 wrote: »

what I would like to know is if you tell them that this is the case how can they prove or disprove it??

The simple answer is, they can't.

More to the point, there's no need for you to tell them anything, and my advice is to tell them just that, ie. NOTHING.

katejo

Cornucopia wrote: »

Where does the 15 mins come from?


Quite - the same is true of much of what we could call "TV Licensing Lore".


Maybe - I can never tell with the BBC whether they are being shrewd or belligerent.

Earlier this week I read on a Which Update that the BBC was going to start showing some programmes on iPlayer before they are shown on the usual TV channels. Is this going to cause problems re. licensing?