TV Licence article Discussion

Cornucopia

"Live TV" is a misnomer in the TV Licence context.   It's not about "Live TV" needing a Licence, it's about TV broadcasts needing one.  

TV Licensing in their wisdom(?) decided to hijack an existing term that already meant something specific for their own purposes, and that way lies confusion (but perhaps that was their intention?)

oldernonethewiser

A new one on me.  Got a missive from TVL today with "10 Day Window" showing in the erm.... window.

Dated 18th Dec "window" closes 8th January. 

They are aware there is no licence at the address but have given ten days to rectify this.  How kind.

Into the recycling it has gone.

Paul_Moran

I've been thinking about it for a while, but after reading the latest Money Tips yesterday, I decided "the time has come", and I visited the TVL site this morning to cancel my licence. The site directed me first to a TVL phone number reserved solely for cancellations. I had a long but pleasant conversation (39 minutes at 2p per minute, courtesy of the 18185 service) with a female agent, following which I had to revisit the site to complete an online refund claim form (current licence expires 31 Mar 2026). I've tried to make sure that my 5 TVs and 2 DVD recorders do not accidentally tune in to live TV. I disconnected the UHF aerial from the loft-based amplifier/distributor, unplugged the fly-leads from the room wall plates, and retuned each device so that no channel is stored. I also checked that WiFi was disabled (my default user setting for the "smart" TVs).

Cornucopia

That's pretty thorough.   You don't need to disconnect your TV(s) from Wifi, and you will need them connected if you want to watch commercial on-demand content, as you are permitted to do.

Paul_Moran

Thorough, definitely. Overkill, some might say, but IMO these are the minimum necessary changes to demonstrate to TV Licensing, should they visit me, that I do not watch live TV, or use BBC iPlayer. (Not on my TVs, anyway. For PCs, and for some of my Blu-ray players with non-removable apps, they'll just have to take my word for it.)

My distrust of Wi-Fi on TV goes back about 11 years, when I was setting up a new Panasonic 65" plasma screen TV. I clicked on the video messaging app - Skype, probably - and up popped a camera from the back of the TV! I pushed it back in PDQ, and probably disabled the app. But it made me realise that an open Wi-Fi connection, unprotected by the VPN and disk encryption that I use on my PCs, was not something I wanted in my living room, or anywhere else in the house. I don't have a home network (and no future plans for one) and I have never used commercial on-demand services (no future plans for them, either), so it was any easy decision to simply turn off the Wi-Fi connection. I've followed that policy with all my subsequent smart TV purchases: I set up a Wi-Fi connection to make sure it works, then disable it, perhaps turning it on occasionally to check for updates. More recent events have only reinforced my policy. You may remember the fuss, a few years back, when Which? investigations revealed that smart TVs were collecting viewer data and passing it back to manufacturers.

JSmithy45AD

Paul_Moran said:

Thorough, definitely. Overkill, some might say, but IMO these are the minimum necessary changes to demonstrate to TV Licensing, should they visit me, that I do not watch live TV, or use BBC iPlayer. (Not on my TVs, anyway. For PCs, and for some of my Blu-ray players with non-removable apps, they'll just have to take my word for it.)

My distrust of Wi-Fi on TV goes back about 11 years, when I was setting up a new Panasonic 65" plasma screen TV. I clicked on the video messaging app - Skype, probably - and up popped a camera from the back of the TV! I pushed it back in PDQ, and probably disabled the app. But it made me realise that an open Wi-Fi connection, unprotected by the VPN and disk encryption that I use on my PCs, was not something I wanted in my living room, or anywhere else in the house. I don't have a home network (and no future plans for one) and I have never used commercial on-demand services (no future plans for them, either), so it was any easy decision to simply turn off the Wi-Fi connection. I've followed that policy with all my subsequent smart TV purchases: I set up a Wi-Fi connection to make sure it works, then disable it, perhaps turning it on occasionally to check for updates. More recent events have only reinforced my policy. You may remember the fuss, a few years back, when Which? investigations revealed that smart TVs were collecting viewer data and passing it back to manufacturers.

Would it not be easier to just sell the TV's then if you don't watch anything?

BTW, you don't have to demonstrate anything to TV Licensing at all, if they knock on your door you can simply close it again without speaking a word.

Cornucopia

Paul_Moran said:

Thorough, definitely. Overkill, some might say, but IMO these are the minimum necessary changes to demonstrate to TV Licensing, should they visit me, that I do not watch live TV, or use BBC iPlayer. (Not on my TVs, anyway. For PCs, and for some of my Blu-ray players with non-removable apps, they'll just have to take my word for it.)

Okay.   They don't really do that kind of technical inspection these days - it's too hard to cover to all the possible models of AV equipment and guarantee not to break anything.   They rely on questioning people in a way that may not respect their legal rights.   

Paul_Moran

JSmithy45AD said:

Paul_Moran said:

Thorough, definitely. Overkill, some might say, but IMO these are the minimum necessary changes to demonstrate to TV Licensing, should they visit me, that I do not watch live TV, or use BBC iPlayer. (Not on my TVs, anyway. For PCs, and for some of my Blu-ray players with non-removable apps, they'll just have to take my word for it.)

My distrust of Wi-Fi on TV goes back about 11 years, when I was setting up a new Panasonic 65" plasma screen TV. I clicked on the video messaging app - Skype, probably - and up popped a camera from the back of the TV! I pushed it back in PDQ, and probably disabled the app. But it made me realise that an open Wi-Fi connection, unprotected by the VPN and disk encryption that I use on my PCs, was not something I wanted in my living room, or anywhere else in the house. I don't have a home network (and no future plans for one) and I have never used commercial on-demand services (no future plans for them, either), so it was any easy decision to simply turn off the Wi-Fi connection. I've followed that policy with all my subsequent smart TV purchases: I set up a Wi-Fi connection to make sure it works, then disable it, perhaps turning it on occasionally to check for updates. More recent events have only reinforced my policy. You may remember the fuss, a few years back, when Which? investigations revealed that smart TVs were collecting viewer data and passing it back to manufacturers.

Would it not be easier to just sell the TV's then if you don't watch anything?

BTW, you don't have to demonstrate anything to TV Licensing at all, if they knock on your door you can simply close it again without speaking a word.

If I sell my TVs, I would have to use one of my PCs to watch my DVDs, Blu-rays and 4K UHDs (7295 at the moment; many more if I count individual films instead of boxed sets) and downloads. Unacceptable.

Imagine you were a TV Licensing inspector and someone closed the door in your face. You might be annoyed enough to come back with a warrant.

Paul_Moran

Cornucopia said:

Paul_Moran said:

Thorough, definitely. Overkill, some might say, but IMO these are the minimum necessary changes to demonstrate to TV Licensing, should they visit me, that I do not watch live TV, or use BBC iPlayer. (Not on my TVs, anyway. For PCs, and for some of my Blu-ray players with non-removable apps, they'll just have to take my word for it.)

Okay.   They don't really do that kind of technical inspection these days - it's too hard to cover to all the possible models of AV equipment and guarantee not to break anything.   They rely on questioning people in a way that may not respect their legal rights.   

That explains the 39 minute conversation. I was asked questions about the devices I owned that were capable of receiving live TV broadcasts, and my viewing (or non-viewing) habits, and how many other people lived in my house (none, in fact). These all seemed relevant questions, and I did not feel that my legal rights had been infringed.  

The day after the conversation, I received an email confirming that my address had been registered as No Licence Needed, so I'll be £174.50 p.a. better off. I'll probably increase my monthly donations to Liberty and We Own It.

PRAISETHESUN

Paul_Moran said:

JSmithy45AD said:

Paul_Moran said:

Thorough, definitely. Overkill, some might say, but IMO these are the minimum necessary changes to demonstrate to TV Licensing, should they visit me, that I do not watch live TV, or use BBC iPlayer. (Not on my TVs, anyway. For PCs, and for some of my Blu-ray players with non-removable apps, they'll just have to take my word for it.)

My distrust of Wi-Fi on TV goes back about 11 years, when I was setting up a new Panasonic 65" plasma screen TV. I clicked on the video messaging app - Skype, probably - and up popped a camera from the back of the TV! I pushed it back in PDQ, and probably disabled the app. But it made me realise that an open Wi-Fi connection, unprotected by the VPN and disk encryption that I use on my PCs, was not something I wanted in my living room, or anywhere else in the house. I don't have a home network (and no future plans for one) and I have never used commercial on-demand services (no future plans for them, either), so it was any easy decision to simply turn off the Wi-Fi connection. I've followed that policy with all my subsequent smart TV purchases: I set up a Wi-Fi connection to make sure it works, then disable it, perhaps turning it on occasionally to check for updates. More recent events have only reinforced my policy. You may remember the fuss, a few years back, when Which? investigations revealed that smart TVs were collecting viewer data and passing it back to manufacturers.

Would it not be easier to just sell the TV's then if you don't watch anything?

BTW, you don't have to demonstrate anything to TV Licensing at all, if they knock on your door you can simply close it again without speaking a word.

If I sell my TVs, I would have to use one of my PCs to watch my DVDs, Blu-rays and 4K UHDs (7295 at the moment; many more if I count individual films instead of boxed sets) and downloads. Unacceptable.

Imagine you were a TV Licensing inspector and someone closed the door in your face. You might be annoyed enough to come back with a warrant.

I would tend to agree that if I were a TV licence enforcer, I would be annoyed if the door were shut in my face. That said, they have no legal right to enter your proeprty without a warrant, and having experienced their behaviour before I learnt what they were allowed/not allowed to do, I would highly reccomend you exercise your rights. In the very unlikely event a warrant was obtained to inspect your property, your defence would be exactly that - there is no device that is configured to receive a TV broadcast in the property.