TV Licence article Discussion

Former_MSE_Becca

darren1217 wrote: »

My Friend only watching satellite tv (not sky or any other uk broadcaster) he watches programs from Argentina or some other non uk channels he is 60 and pays direct debit for his licence, How can he prove he never watches live tv from the uk. He was getting phone calls every day for 2 weeks from the tv licence company. even though he had paid via a paypoint and had proof, his English is not great and they harresed him non stop and were very rude at times.

Hi darren1217, thanks for the really good question - I didn't know about this, so have checked it up with the TV Licensing body. This is their response:

[FONT=&quot]You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record live TV in the UK, regardless of the country of origin or the language of the broadcast[/FONT].

So your friend will have to continue paying is licence for now (though when he reaches 75 he'll get it for free ) I have added it to the guide, in case anyone else is in a similar situation.

Many thanks,
MSE Becca

Former_MSE_Becca

madmuppet5 wrote: »

The radio licence itself was abolished in 1971 although I think there are a lot of people who still think you need one.

You're quite right madmuppet5 - and I've now added this to the guide, to help any other users who are confused

Many thanks,
MSE Becca

Former_MSE_Becca

Cornucopia wrote: »

Whilst I applaud MSE's efforts to clarify and publicise (what for such a simple thing is an incredibly complex system), there is an awful lot of misunderstanding and misinformation out there, and on this thread.

In no particular order...

- You need a licence to receive programmes from foreign satellites.

This is correct - I have now added it to the guide

Cornucopia wrote: »

- If you receive the same foreign broadcast over the Internet, the present wording on the TVL website suggests that you don't need a licence for that.

Not 100% sure on this - have asked TV Licensing for clarification.

Cornucopia wrote: »

- The prime test of whether you need a licence or not is whether you are watching or recording (on home equipment) a TV service as it is transmitted to the general public. The old "capability" test has gone. A TV service is e.g. the live transmission of BBC1 or ITV1.

This is correct, and I have added a "capability" section to the guide now, to help clear up any other users' confusion

Cornucopia wrote: »

- Watching over the Internet only requires a licence if you are watching a live stream ie. the same output as you would see over the air.

Yep, this is correct.

Cornucopia wrote: »

- If you do not have a licence, you can still:- watch DVDs, Videogames, Netflix & Lovefilm, YouTube, and the internet players of the broadcasters (iPlayer, ITV Player, 4OD, Demand 5) - as long as you do not watch live streams.

Yep, and this is already in the guide

Cornucopia wrote: »

- A licence covers portable equipment used away from your permanent home. This includes a laptop/tablet running on its internal batteries.

Yep, this is correct too.

Thanks for the guide suggestions - hopefully the extra info will help clear up any other users' questions.

Kind regards,
MSE Becca

Former_MSE_Becca

Paul_Varjak wrote: »

I am pretty sure that was the case when I was a child; I am 62 now. Just a pity that Martin failed to mention that you don't need a licence if you only listen to radio as some of us 'oldies' may still be thinking we need one just for radio!

Thanks for the suggestion Paul Varjak - I've now added a section on this.

Many thanks,
MSE Becca

Paul_Varjak

It is also worth pointing out that even if a visually impaired person shares a home with a fully sighted person the half price concession applies.

In fact, even a fully sighted person can have a half price licence in their name, if they live with somone who is visually impaired (espcially useful if a child is visually impaired and would not apply for a icence in their own name)

Thex

When buying a TV, the Retailer, by law has to ask for your address. Do you have to give it, please ?

Cornucopia

Thex wrote: »

When buying a TV, the Retailer, by law has to ask for your address. Do you have to give it, please ?

Yes. But it does not have to be accurate.

You are not under any obligation to give a true address. The retailer is under an obligation to pass on what you say, but does not have to take steps to verify it (though some will e.g. against a loyalty card or a database of postcodes).

The Government spoke some while ago about removing the whole notification requirement, but it does not seem to have been implemented.

ej8113

So does this mean we are effectively subsidising everyone else (The Whole World) to watch BBC TV - Radio - Web with a regressive tax on our citizens ... would I be right in assuming that
BBC Worldwide Limited also produces income for the BBC so why don't we see economies of scale reducing the licence fee ?

Not watching LIVE TV is a small price to pay to end this tyranny

Cornucopia

ej8113 wrote: »

So does this mean we are effectively subsidising everyone else (The Whole World) to watch BBC TV - Radio - Web with a regressive tax on our citizens ...

Yes and no. Much of the BBC's output is restricted so that access is limited from outside the UK. Large parts of Europe can see the BBC's output with terrestrial or satellite reception, though.

would I be right in assuming that
BBC Worldwide Limited also produces income for the BBC so why don't we see economies of scale reducing the licence fee ?

It does. There is some debate as to the net benefit to the BBC, since BBC WW only declares c. £100m profit year by year. Given that it has potential access to content that costs £3bn to create, that doesn't seem very much.

Nilrem

But the BBC:WW profit is after their costs.
the biggest cost will be, unsurprisingly - buying the content from the creators (the BBC and others!).
BBC:WW have to buy the content it sells from the BBC (and others such as ITV), at market rates.

To say the BBC only gets £100 million from BBC:WW is completely misunderstanding how things work.

BBC:WW has to buy in content - that is a cost.
The money they pay for that content goes to the companies or organisations that produced it.

So if they sell Series 6 of new Doctor Who to an American broadcaster for £10 million, and their costs are 500k, that means that there is £9.5 million to be split* between them and the supplier (BBC Wales).
So in that instance the original production company would then get £8.55 million (some of might be further split by the production company to pay out additional fees to the cast/crew).
BBC:WW would retain £950,000 as their profit, and that would be what shows in it's accounts as profit.
However the BBC would actually see the whole 9.5 million (minus taxes), as they ultimately get both the Agent fee (from BBC:WW) and the content owners fees..

Basically when you look at the accounts of a content distributor/publisher you need to remember that the accounts only show the profit for them as the distribution arm (effectively the agents fees).
It doesn't show the money the parent organisation might get from the actual content.

IIRC the BBC's own accounts show that they receive far more than £100 million from BBC:WW from the sale of content, and that the £100 million is only BBC:WW's own profit.


*For ease of maths, I'm going to assume BBC:WW take 10% after costs as their fee - as that is a fairly common amount for agents in various creative industries to take as their cut (be it the agent to an author, or the agent to an actor etc).