TV Licence article Discussion

cw18

No you don't. You need a licence to record them as they're being shown or to watch as they're being shown, but neither of those is true when watching recordings of old shows (unless you're incredibly unlucky and they're doing a re-run at the same time!)

Cornucopia

cw18 wrote: »

... (unless you're incredibly unlucky and they're doing a re-run at the same time!)

The requirement (or not) for a Licence is strictly dependent on the type of content - whether it is being watched or recorded "as live", or whether it originates in a catch-up service that is under the editorial control of the BBC (i.e. iPlayer).

For commercial content that is not being viewed as a live TV broadcast, no Licence is required, and it is not necessary for people to check the schedules before watching to see if the content they are about to watch is being repeated on the live service.

The theoretical risk stems from the arcane way in which BBC-TV Licensing chooses to enforce the Licence Fee. IF you were watching a catch-up program at the same time it was being repeated AND at the same time a TVL doorstepper arrived with a copy of the Radio Times in hand, it might create the situation where they gained a false level of confidence in their work. That's really all we are talking about.

BBC-TV Licensing has previously said that they consider catch-up content to be live until 2 hours after its original live transmission slot. There's no basis in law for this.

On All4 (the only commercial catch-up service that presents a timed schedule) it's clear that much of its content is available to view before its live transmission slot. There are various reasons for this, including special exclusives. Against that background, the BBC's views on this look somewhat out of date.

[Deleted User]

Just had a red envelope addressed to the legal occupier from TVL in the post today. What's the red all about? :rotfl:

Cornucopia

Deleted_User wrote: »

Just had a red envelope addressed to the legal occupier from TVL in the post today. What's the red all about? :rotfl:

What the TVL mass mailings lack in honesty, necessity, rationality, effectiveness and respect for innocent members of the public they make up for in melodrama and theatricality.

I particularly "like" the fake rubber stamp impressions that have been added to some letters recently. A real touch of the scam marketeers' art.

FreeBear

Cornucopia wrote: »

I particularly "like" the fake rubber stamp impressions that have been added to some letters recently. A real touch of the scam marketeers' art.

Royal Mail has a department set up specifically to deal with scam mail. If you think it suspicious, report it - https://personal.help.royalmail.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/303

I might just do that myself when the red or blue envelopes turn up :rotfl:

Cornucopia

Thanks, but I don't think I could genuinely make the case that they were actually scams, merely that they have decided to use one of the techniques that scams routinely use.

Here's an example...



I asked the BBC under FOI whether the stamp image and the signature were "real" or not i.e. were "wet" impressions left by a rubber stamp and a human hand, respectively. After some typical pedantry and prevarication they confirmed that they weren't. I never seriously thought that they were, however the use of such devices on supposedly official communications is/was so completely unprecedented I thought it would be interesting to see how far they would go to protect the information.

Nick_C

£6 a week? When you can get Netflix for £6 a month! LOL

Crapita at its best.

EachPenny

Cornucopia wrote: »

I asked the BBC under FOI whether the stamp image and the signature were "real" or not i.e. were "wet" impressions left by a rubber stamp and a human hand, respectively. After some typical pedantry and prevarication they confirmed that they weren't. I never seriously thought that they were, however the use of such devices on supposedly official communications is/was so completely unprecedented I thought it would be interesting to see how far they would go to protect the information.

I was speaking to a neighbour yesterday. It turns out the 'thug' who visited on Tuesday had been here before, the first time nearly two months ago.

That would pre-date the letter from TVL saying a visit had now been "authorised". If a visit needed to be "authorised" then it suggests this is something legally or procedurally required before an agent can knock on my door.

I know that isn't the case, and have opted for the 'no contact' route, but otherwise it is very tempting to reply to them asking why the 'thug' had been making these "unauthorised" visits.

If it was anyone other than the BBC engaged in these underhand tricks there would be an outcry over it.

Cornucopia

Nick_C wrote: »

£6 a week? When you can get Netflix for £6 a month! LOL

Crapita at its best.

They are their own worst enemies at times. It's not £6 per week. The Licence is £3 per week, £12 per month. The £6 relates to the over-payment to build up credit in the first 6 months. I can't believe that they couldn't find a better form of words to express this so as not to put people off, but their letters do seem to be written by someone with zero idea of how to win hearts and minds.

Cornucopia

EachPenny wrote: »

I know that isn't the case, and have opted for the 'no contact' route, but otherwise it is very tempting to reply to them asking why the 'thug' had been making these "unauthorised" visits.

Indeed. For all the hyperbole in their letters, they bear no relation to any visits they might make.

If it was anyone other than the BBC engaged in these underhand tricks there would be an outcry over it.

My main theory is that the whole thing is vast over-reach based on little or no real authority, and a vast amount of arrogance and ignorance on their part.

However, I have speculated in the past as to whether there might be something special about the BBC's status that enabled at least some of their activities - it would have to be something that was so embarrassing to them that it would explain why they are very secretive about it.

In support of that, I already know that because they are incorporated under Royal Charter they are not bound by the Business Names Act 1985, which is why they do not have to disclose that TV Licensing is a trading name of the BBC on every piece of documentation.