TV Licence article Discussion

iancarbarns

The answers are clearly stated in Communications Act 2003 (see Section 4) and/or Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 (see, section 9), which define that:
* a licence is required to INSTALL OR USE. So having a TV connected to an aerial or satellite dish requires a licence (because INSTALLED) even if you never watch anything. Intending to install a TV or even knowing that someone else intends to install it is an offence. There is a special exemption for TV dealerships.
* there is still an exemption for devices powered by internal batteries

Section 4, 363:
Licence required for use of TV receiver
(1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.
(2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.
(3)A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his control who—
(a)intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or
(b)knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,is guilty of an offence.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(5)Subsection (1) is not contravened by anything done in the course of the business of a dealer in television receivers solely for one or more of the following purposes—
(a)installing a television receiver on delivery;
(b)demonstrating, testing or repairing a television receiver.
(6)The Secretary of State may by regulations exempt from the requirement of a licence under subsection (1) the installation or use of television receivers—
(a)of such descriptions,
(b)by such persons,
(c)in such circumstances, and
(d)for such purposes,as may be provided for in the regulations.
(7)Regulations under subsection (6) may make any exemption for which such regulations provide subject to compliance with such conditions as may be specified in the regulations.

Meaning of “television receiver”
9.—(1) 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.

Cornucopia

iancarbans wrote:

Correct line of thinking, but wrong conclusion

Not sure who/what that is in response to. However, your assertion that: "So having a TV connected to an aerial or satellite dish requires a licence (because INSTALLED) even if you never watch anything", is wrong.

The correct interpretation of the legislation is this:

The text at the bottom of your post (from the TV Licensing Regulations) clearly identifies a TV Receiver as not just a "TV set", but a TV that has been installed or is used for the purpose of receiving TV.

Therefore in the main legislation, the requirement for a licence is attached to that definition, and can be read in full as: a licence is required to install or use a TV for TV reception.

Hence, if there is no TV reception, there is no requirement for a Licence.

We know that's correct, because TVL ALWAYS talk in terms of a Licence being required for watching/recording TV and using iPlayer, and NEVER in terms of what would be the much broader/simpler enforcement task of tracking physical TV sets.

I have a slight issue with that definition, in that it implies that the offence solely concerns use, whereas the truth is more that it mainly concerns use. However, I assume that they are sacrificing accuracy in the name of simplicity, which is their prerogative, to an extent. I don't think (in this case), their objective is to deceive.

cw18

Cornucopia wrote: »

TVL ALWAYS talk in terms of a Licence being required for watching/recording TV and using iPlayer, and NEVER in terms of what would be the much broader/simpler enforcement task of tracking physical TV sets.

The tracking being what they used to do. Whenever I've bought a TV there was always a form to complete to be sent to TVL with my address on it, which then brought in a letter asking if I now needed a licence. But I've been informed by several sources that this is no longer done. My last purchase was in July 2012, so it's changed since then. (Google turned up a page which says the requirement for a dealer to notify them was removed on 25th June 2013.)

[Deleted User]

iancarbarns must be one of those pro-tv licence brainwashed bods that think you need a licence for just owning a TV set.

Cornucopia

cw18 wrote: »

(Google turned up a page which says the requirement for a dealer to notify them was removed on 25th June 2013.)

Yes, this was removed by Vince Cable during the Coalition Government. It was felt that the process was already ineffective and compromised due to false data being submitted (which wasn't an offence).

Some retailers, I think, didn't like it, and the BBC had never sorted out the apparent contradiction between, say, Asda selling a TV that would never be used for TV reception, but having to notify TVL, and Sky, say, installing a satellite dish and box that would only be used for TV reception and not notifying TVL.

paul0551

Install a Virtual Private Network (VPN) software on your PC/tablet.
I use Express VPN but there are others. It costs about £10/month
This software "spoofs" the BBC systems to thinking that you are in the UK, irrespective of where you are in the world.

kazbaa13

lamp wrote: »

I look forward to the day TV licencing collapses. No profit-making company would be permitted to behave in the disgraceful manner TVL do

I agree, overpaid, poor quality presenters and poor quality repeated programmes. They should be self sufficient or subscription based like all the other guys. I am throwing £150 down the drain every year and it angers me.

Michael_L_2

I have always been a firm supporter of the Licence Fee and the BBC. £3 per week provides the best television in the World uninterrupted by offers of 'feminine hygiene' products or toilet cleaner. Likewise there are excellent radio programmes for every taste and brilliant content on the website. When we fly anywhere I download tv shows on my iPad.
We watch commercial offerings only after they have been recorded so the adverts can be skipped over.
So we are talking about less than the cost of a pint of beer a week for all this. What I struggle to understand is why Sky customers choose to pay a subscription AND suffer advertising.

cw18

Michael_L wrote: »

I have always been a firm supporter of the Licence Fee and the BBC. £3 per week provides the best television in the World uninterrupted by offers of 'feminine hygiene' products or toilet cleaner.

I agree it means no adverts on the BBC channels, and would be happy if you only needed a licence in order to watch said BBC channels. But I don't agree that the BBC provides the best TV in the world, and got fed up of paying £3/week to be allowed to watch the other channels. So the simple solution for me was to cancel my licence, disconnect my aerial (only had Freeview anyway), and spend that £3/week on second hand DVDs that I can watch in an order and at a time to suit me - rather than the 'out of series order' and 'too early/late in the day times' that so many of the shows I did watch on the other channels were shown.

What I struggle to understand is why Sky customers choose to pay a subscription AND suffer advertising.

I guess because the subscription would be higher without the adverts. But my fella records most of the shows he watches on Sky, so simply skips the adverts in those anyway, the same way you do with the commercial offerings.....

Michael_L_2

j_Wood-cowling wrote: »

I do not have Sky Television I do not pay for sky. Whether or not I watch BBC TV I have to pay for it. This is wrong i should have a choice. I have no say in the huge salaries paid to some people on TV.
The BBC is State Television used by Governments to control the public guardians of Royalty, Republicans are given no space on BBC. For years the BBC was controlled by the green book, the establishment decided what we should hear or see rather like Communist Soviet Union. Some of these control freaks are still around. Journalists don't complain they would all like to work for the BBC, a licence to print money.

The existence of this post is strange enough. What astonishes me is that a number of people endorse the comments. 'Republicans are given no space on BBC'. What does it mean? 'Journalists don't complain they would all like to work for the BBC...'. Again I am left scratching my head. Could we have some details to back up the assertions?