TV Licence article Discussion

DavidP24

Some PVR's do not come on but still record so the button argument is weak.

Easiest way is to remove SAT cable and/or Aerial Cable, then the device cannot receive live TV.

I have my own content and am quite happy with that, my library does not depend on a Sky Subscription, I might sometimes take up an offer from Netflix or Amazon but not needed at the moment as I do not have broadband.

I tend to see stuff way before it comes to TV anyway, the same way people do on planes or if they visit abroad.

HornetSaver

Cornucopia wrote: »

(a) is it appropriate for the BBC to be involved in operating commercial media within the UK?

(b) is the BBC (and by extension the Licence Fee payer) getting full value from the sale of BBC programming through UKTV?

(c) are BBC programme commissioning choices being affected by the desire for subsequent sale to commercial broadcasters?

(d) is there competition for advertisers between UKTV and other commercial channels (including commercial PSBs like C4), and is this appropriate?

(e) if the law changes to bring PSB channels' catch-up services under the Licence, is it fair and appropriate that the BBC could benefit from UKTV catch-up being outside of the Licence?

I do like many of Dave's original productions, though.

Putting question (a) to one side for now.

Five years ago, or maybe even three years ago, my view would have been that the BBC's quality is so far ahead of others that the status quo represents value for the licence payer as it raises the bar, regardless of the point-by-point answers to those questions. But commercial competitors (rival TV channels as well as in house productions on video streaming platforms) really have come leaps and bounds lately.

My view nowadays is that it all boils down to whether or not the production of things rival broadcasters are equally good at indirectly gives the licence payer better value for money on delivery of the things the Beeb will always do best. These include news free from perceived or actual advertising pressure, local radio, weather, degree of coverage of politics, Welsh/Gaelic equivalents of the above, the World Service, niche productions that have a clear audience which isn't large enough to be commercially viable, etc.

The perfect example would be Top Gear - does the UK element of its revenue from the likes of Dave

1. Help subsidize "loss leaders" like local radio (which might otherwise be done to a lower standard due to budgetary pressure)?
2. Is any UK profit eaten up by pay inflation within the industry, which the BBC is driving by competing in areas that commercial broadcasters are good at, thus making production of essential services more expensive and costing the licence payer?

The answer to (a) is probably not, unless it makes a decisive difference between answer 1 or 2, and even then possibly not.

Jeems

Why is this thread so big? To put it simply:

You need a tv license if you watch or record LIVE TV (be it bbc, freeview, sky, some obscure foreign satellite channel etc) via ANY device (tv, pc, laptop, tablet, phone etc)

You do not need a license simply for having a TV. If you're not sure, just disconnect the TV aerial.

If TVL try to scare you with misinformation, they are lying. Dont speak to them, dont contact them, enjoy your life.

Whether the TV license is "fair" or "good value" really doesn't interest me. This is not a loophole/being crafty. These are their rules which are stated clearly on their own website. Until they change them, I will happily save £12.12/month.

It really is that simple.

Claudiah

Thanks so much for all the input. Some really helpful info there. Almost everything seems to point to the fact that I need a license only if I watch or record Live TV. I only want to use the sky box to watch catch-up TV, and possibly the radio (though that's much less likely). I understand I can disconnect the box from the satellite, but then I lose these services. I know I can watch catch up services in other ways (and will), but the sky box is a very good way. as is sky go, and I already have it linked up and working.

Derrick is right (thansk for the link too!)in that I wouldn't ever be recording live TV.

When I contacted TVL they also gave the reason I would need a license as "I wouldn't be able to prove I wasn't watching live tv"!!

Only thing I can find that suggests i would need a license on their website is:

I already pay to watch satellite or cable television so do I still need to buy a TV Licence?

Yes. It makes no difference how you watch television whether it's on your laptop, PC or mobile phone or through a digital box, DVD recorder or TV set. If you use any device to receive television programmes as they're being shown on TV, the law requires you to be covered by a licence.

Here they talk about receiving live TV rather than watching it, but I'm not actually sure if the sky box would be receiving TV while I'm on the radio channel say, or just watching bbci player on it.

hmmm...

Claudiah

Also I just found this on ofcom's site:

If you use a digital box with a hi-fi system, or another device that can only be used to produce sounds and can't display TV programmes, and you don't install or use any other TV receiving equipment, you don't need a TV Licence.

Firstly, it's good you can listen to TV this way if you wanted to! But secondly they again are talking about installing or using other TV receiving equipment requiring a license, not simply watching or recording it. It's quite confusing.

JimmyTheWig

Claudiah wrote: »

Almost everything seems to point to the fact that I need a license only if I watch or record Live TV.

Correct.

I only want to use the sky box to watch catch-up TV, and possibly the radio (though that's much less likely). I understand I can disconnect the box from the satellite, but then I lose these services.

Which is why this isn't a suggested way for someone who is legally licence free to watch catch-up.

Derrick is right (thansk for the link too!)in that I wouldn't ever be recording live TV.

The question is whether the Sky box ever records live TV automatically. I believe that it does.
Is the default channel (999, is it?) broadcast as live TV? If so, as soon as you plug your Sky box in and switch it on it will be receiving live TV. Presumably, also, you'd be able to rewind this channel? If so, the Sky box must be recording it to play it back to you rewound. So switching on a plugged in Sky box will record live TV, whether you want it to or not.

When I contacted TVL they also gave the reason I would need a license as "I wouldn't be able to prove I wasn't watching live tv"!!

It's a difficult one. A fine line between "innocent until proven guilty" and "balance of probabilities".
If a judge heard that someone had a Sky subscription and had the cables attached so that they could watch and record live TV I think they will probably assume that you used it to watch or record live TV on the balance of probabilities.

Claudiah

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

The question is whether the Sky box ever records live TV automatically. I believe that it does.
Is the default channel (999, is it?) broadcast as live TV? If so, as soon as you plug your Sky box in and switch it on it will be receiving live TV. Presumably, also, you'd be able to rewind this channel? If so, the Sky box must be recording it to play it back to you rewound. So switching on a plugged in Sky box will record live TV, whether you want it to or not.

Hmmm, I'll check that out. I think it might also be possible to stop live pause on the box, I'd never need it. Also i'm pretty sure that 999 is a one minute loop or similar. Not sure if that counts as TV, but yes, if I could disable live pause, then switch 998 without watching (you're loud to listen!) it might be ok....

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

It's a difficult one. A fine line between "innocent until proven guilty" and "balance of probabilities".
If a judge heard that someone had a Sky subscription and had the cables attached so that they could watch and record live TV I think they will probably assume that you used it to watch or record live TV on the balance of probabilities.

That would be a bad judge imo. That'd be like doing everyone for speeding because their cars can go faster than 70mph. Also the cables would be attached for the reason of watching catch up tv, not live tv.

Annoying stuff though. All so petty if not actually watching live tv (the law not you!)

Thanks, will report back on the channel 999 issue when I get the chance to test it...

Swipe

When you cancel your sky subscription your sky+ recording facility will be disabled so their argument goes out of the window.

Cornucopia

Claudiah wrote: »

Almost everything seems to point to the fact that I need a license only if I watch or record Live TV.

Yes, that is how TVL summarise the Law. The key word being "summarise", because the actual Law is somewhat more complicated. It talks about equipment being "installed or used for the purpose of receiving TV (broadcasts)". This is where it gets complicated, and the fact that TVL summarise the Law in a particular way does not prevent them from enforcing it differently. (They are like that).

There is also the issue that the majority of TVL prosecutions begin with a confession statement given more or less willingly, more or less lawfully. Physical evidence is almost never captured or presented in Court. That means that the first hurdle will be to persuade an eager (and financially incentivised) TVL salesperson that although they might think that Sky means automatic evasion, you are different. Then when they disagree with you, there will possibly be the need to back up your view in Court.

In the middle of an enforcement and prosecution process that is as flaky as that, you really don't want to have to persuade the Court that you were paying for a TV subscription you never use.

I only want to use the sky box to watch catch-up TV, and possibly the radio...

Unfortunately, Sky satellite is not a good way to access Catch-up and be legally Licence-free. This is for all the reasons discussed above. I note that you said that you had "a good deal", but it seems unlikely that Sky satellite is even close to being the cheapest way to access the services you want (which makes it difficult to explain away, if that became necessary).

Now TV is a much better way to go (assuming you still want access to Sky channels via catch-up).

When I contacted TVL they also gave the reason I would need a license as "I wouldn't be able to prove I wasn't watching live tv"!!

That's not a great explanation, but the overall advice they gave you was sound. Sky satellite is not a great solution for being legally Licence free.

FWIW, and if I know Sky as well as I think I do, I suspect that cancelling the TV sub will lead to some/all of the catch-up players ceasing to work.


From an MSE point of view, switching from Sky Satellite + TV Licence to Now TV Entertainment pack is a no-brainer (if you do not have have Sports or Movies) even if you have to pay for broadband when you move. Yes, I know that the channel line-up is smaller with Now TV. If you have Sky Movies, then IIUC, Now TV gives the option of just having Movies without having to subscribe to Entertainment first, which offers a similar saving.

Sky Satellite
TV Package: £25
TV Licence: £12
Broadband: Free

Now TV
Entertainment Pack: £7
Broadband: £5
err.. that's it. And the Now TV box is £15 to buy outright (with offers available).

All costs ~ish depending on the exact situation. Line Rental also payable in both scenarios.

Saving around £300 per year.

Cornucopia

Jeems wrote: »

Why is this thread so big?

...

If TVL try to scare you with misinformation, they are lying. Dont speak to them, dont contact them, enjoy your life.

There are two main reasons why the thread is so big:-

1. TVL misinformation, and the public's corresponding misconceptions and uncertainty about what the rules are. To be fair to them, though, the situation is significantly more complicated than it needs to be, and BBC/TVL do not help by being unclear, publishing misinformation, and refusing to publish information that would clarify and assist the public in understanding. (A cynical person would probably say that BBC/TVL try to keep the public guessing as it makes enforcement easier... but I couldn't possibly comment).

2. Unwillingness on the part of some posters to accept that choosing to go without TV broadcasts and thereby not to require a TV Licence is anything other than a straight choice.

There was also a big chunk of the thread taken over by someone who on the one hand believed that TV Detection equipment was in common usage (it isn't) and on the other thought that anti-TVL/anti-Licence Fee campaigners were not doing enough (which is a matter of opinion).