TV Licence article Discussion

cw18

Mecoconuts wrote: »

What a load of BULL that Article is ......it has nothing to do with how you 'watch' TV but how you recieve it.

Here is the LAW :

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/legislation-and-policy-AB9#link1

But it also states on their website that "You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. "

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one

cw18

expat_mike wrote: »

I have an important question for some posting here, since when did UK legislation become applicable outside of the UK ? If I live in Spain, then Spanish law applies and NO Spanish law prohibits me from receiving, viewing or recording any TV signal received by me in Spain.

Their is no requirement to have a UK TV Licence to access UK broadcasts in any other country (apart from the Channel Islands who appear to be an exception)

There is, however, a requirement to have a UK TV Licence to watch shows from other countries as they're being shown in the country of origin.

aclarman

It seems to be a common misconception that the TV licence fee pays for the BBC. It doesn't! It's just a LICENCE, in the same way as a driving licence or a gun licence. It goes into the government coffers in the same way as these. The BBC is funded out of general government revenue (of which the TV licence is just a part), and there is absolutely no direct connection.

worldbridger

I think Martin needs to read the small print again. You have a broken 30 year old TV in your attic you must have a licence for it. Bring on a pay wall for the BBC. From my experiences with the folk who want every home in Britain to have a TV license they are either massively incompetent or having a sadistic laugh. Because of my experience with their harassment, starting with they didn't get my cancellation over the internet (strange how several years running HMR&C gets my tax return no problem), then they did not reply to letters, then the carry on phoning them because you have to go through every single gate then wait eleven minutes for the phone to be picked up, then the letter confirming I was of not further interest for two years, then two weeks later the second letter saying my address was under investigation, then the dirty looking man with his face pressed against the window in my front door who wanted to come in, then the letters, then the form saying someone had visited …. if they turned up now with a search warrant I think it's civil disobedience time and I would rip it up and tell them where to go because I have no confidence in their ability or intention to amend their data and take my address off their wanted list. Oh, just remembered … I have a friend who moved here from another EU country. Never watched TV, far too busy with work, social, and love life. For the first two years she was here she had a TV licence. No TV but Stalinist harassment and persecution. Then she moved.

cw18

There can't be a requirement to have a licence just because you own a TV, otherwise I'd have had them hammering my door down.

Since I cancelled my licence (December 2010) they've been notified of 3 TV purchases made by me. The first (a small set) was bought a couple of weeks before I cancelled but they weren't notified until after, the second (a larger one for the lving room) about 18 months later, and the third a few months later (after the second failed, was replaced, then failed again - so I got a refund and went shopping for a replacement). Every time they were notified they wrote to me asking if I now needed a licence, and every time I replied "no, because I don't watch Live TV". I've had no visits, and no further communication - other than the standard letter they send out every 2 years asking if you need one, which got the same reply. Since July 2013 they've no longer collected information about people buying them either, so a further purchase here wouldn't bring on another letter.

thelawnet

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

You don't need to prove you aren't watching/recording live TV.

It's for them to prove you are.

You fail at reading. That's a quote from MSE, which I was debunking.

thelawnet

Cornucopia wrote: »

You may be wrong about them getting it wrong.

This has gone round and round, several times to my knowledge over the past few years. TVL are currently saying:

Technically we shouldn't pay too much attention to what TVL say (though as you fail to link to a source, it's hard to verify this - here, they say that foreign TV is included - http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ1), because they don't set the law.

It's the Communications Act 2003, and its delegated legislation that does this.
However the MSE article contradicts itself on this point anyway.

Which to me boils down to: you cannot watch or record TV broadcasts, where a broadcast is defined as something broadcast to the UK/CI using terrestrial, satellite, cable or an internet facsimile thereof to everyone at the same time, whether requiring payment or not.

Well that's a little ambiguous. Examples:

* BBC1 - you definitely can't watch it live, because it's broadcast live to the members of the public
* Canal+ (France) - not allowed, presumably, because it's on Sky channel 896 (or whatever it is)
* Red Hot & Dutch (or similar European channel) - I assume with a big enough satellite dish you can get this in the UK
* Indosiar (Indonesian TV channel) - Definitely NOT available via satellite (impossible physically), but if you can watch it live online, then other 'members of the public' can surely do the same, and it's therefore a television broadcast.
* IPL cricket on Indian TV channel - let's say you are watching on India1 (made-up name) - not available in the UK, but the same programme, except for adverts, is being broadcast on ITV2+ - they haven't bothered getting new presenters, it's just rebroadcast. Or vice versa, if you watch a Sky cricket feed, being broadcast in say the USA, with US adverts, online, does that require a licence.

And if I use geographical spoofing to access a foreign channel, is that 'available to the public'?

You are allowed all pre-recorded material, on-demand video and programmes streamed from outside the UK/CI.

Well you can watch all pre-recorded and on-demand video regardless of source anyway, so that's just confusing.

There's no process for not buying a new annual licence, true. However, if you are on one of the instalment schemes, you do need to formally cancel the arrangement. There are reports of TVL assigning accounts to debt collectors when instalments are in default (yes... I know).

Fair enough, but I would stick the declaration where the sun doesn't shine.

Neutral parties like MSE are in a tricky situation with things like this. It would be nice if they did the legwork and reported a complete set of legal rights. But the reality is they don't have the resources to do that, and BBC/TVL have plenty of legal and PR people who are more than capable of making a nuisance of themselves.

MSE is a company worth hundreds of millions of pounds, they are not short of resources. It's not THAT complicated.

The current legally licence free households figure is 1.6m, which sounds somewhat more impressive than 2% (because it is). It's also probably an underestimate, because it is based on people declaring to TVL that they don't need a licence, which I for one have never done.

I refuse to, as a matter of principle. I am not accountable to them.

I haven't had a visit over a period of many years of being LLF. It's likely that there are around 300-400 TVL doorsteppers, and 1.6m LLF households, plus another "5-6%" evaders (perhaps 1.5m). The chances of getting a visit are not particularly high based on those figures. However it seems likely that they concentrate on some areas more than others.

I've had visits at two separate previous addresses, and two visits at my current address (over maybe 3 years). But I've always lived around the outer reaches of London, perhaps if you live in the Outer Hebrides they won't bother you.

Nope. A Sky subscription does not require a licence, as such, though Sky is not a useful platform for being LLF.

Well no of course it doesn't, my point was that it was a terrible example, because without a licence a Sky subscription is either illegal or a complete waste of money.

thelawnet

Mecoconuts wrote: »

What a load of BULL that Article is ......it has nothing to do with how you 'watch' TV but how you recieve it.

Here is the LAW :

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/legislation-and-policy-AB9#link1

No, that's the TV Licensing website.

The law is here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/363

"A television receiver must not be installed or used" [without a licence]

'Television receiver' is defined here

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/692/pdfs/uksi_20040692_en.pdf

"In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), “television receiver” means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.
(2) In this regulation, any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that
programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service"

"“members of the public” means members of the public in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man; "

ThePreacher

A blog post written a while back on the merits of this fee, head over to opinionsonstuff .com

Caparn

If enough people stop paying the TV license because they just watch on-demand TV, the government will simply change the law to add a £145 tax on a broadband connection or make you get a license if you watch any TV on demand.