TV Licensing APR Shock

MarkyMarkD

You need a licence however you receive the signal - people who use 100% SKY or 100% cable are NOT exempt at all.

Dan29

IanD wrote:

The thing that bugs me is the BBC banging on about all these free digital channels "uniquely funded by YOU the licence payer". We can't get them witout subscribing to satelite/cable but we still have to pay the full licenece fee.

Ever heard of Freeview? £35 for a set top box; no subscription.

If Freeview hasn't reached your area yet, how about Freesat for £150; again, no subscription.

BargainHunterCat

Alanw8888 wrote:

I am not sure this is correct it was always the case that the licence was required to instal equipment 'capable' of receiving television broadcasts. Even removing the aerial was not sufficient to prevent the need for a licence as the unit was still capable of receiving a broadcast.

Just for the record here's a quote from https://www.tvlicensing.biz who have taken the trouble to research the matter for us :T :

The primary authority remains the Wireless Telegraphy Act [1949], which states [section 1.--(1)] that it is an offence to:

"... instal or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy except under the authority of a licence [by the BBC] in that behalf granted by the Postmaster General ...". The Postmaster General is the government minister with responsibility for broadcasting.

The 1949 Act does not define a television receiver, but there is a working definition in section 3 [Meaning of Television Receiver] of the Wireless Telegraphy [Television Licence Fees] Regulations [1997]:

"... such apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving television programme services, as defined by section 2.--(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1990, whether or not the apparatus is installed or used for other purposes.

Finally, section 2.--(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1990 defines a "television programme service" quite widely, to include most terrestrial broadcast, cable and satellite TV service. It does not, however, include text-based broadcasts like teletext.

It seems to be the intent rather than the capability that is important here.

Moreover when I had a visit from TV licensing, the chap actually suggested I detune my TV when I explained I only use it for DVDs - as it happens, I had already done so.

There is nothing they can do to force me to buy a license now! They did send me a few letters asking to inspect my detuned TV - needless to say I didn't bother to reply! :rotfl: Time wasters!

caz1965

http://www.tvlicensing.biz/phpBB2/

darbooka

BBC is now going to provide an Arabic TV station to rival al-jezeera, and those viewers are not going to be charged a license fee. Not that a British license fee can be enforced abroad in the post-colonial period. But are UK TV license feer payers now subsidizing foreign broadcasts?

webmasterpolo

I got a letter from them (addressed to me personally) 2 weeks after I moved house saying they were taking me to court because I hadn't paid my licence fee.

I thought it was a bit odd as for the past few years I've paid by Direct Debit and I had told them of my change of address the day I moved.

Wrote to them and told them I didn't appreciate their threatening letters and they should learn how to use their database system correctly to cross reference customers who have licences with those who don't before sending out letters.

Muppets!

They sent a cheque for £5 as compensation.

Wasting more of licence payers money sending out letters and compensation all because they can't do a mail merge based on simple criteria like 'has this customer paid'.

-Web

surfcat

darbooka wrote:

BBC is now going to provide an Arabic TV station to rival al-jezeera, and those viewers are not going to be charged a license fee. Not that a British license fee can be enforced abroad in the post-colonial period. But are UK TV license feer payers now subsidizing foreign broadcasts?

I highly doubt this will be funded by the licence fee. Just as BBC World is not funded by the licence fee.

bunking_off

surfcat wrote:

I highly doubt this will be funded by the licence fee. Just as BBC World is not funded by the licence fee.

Correct, but don't say that as it would then be an informed discussion. Never let the facts get in the way of a good argument...

Dan29

darbooka wrote:

BBC is now going to provide an Arabic TV station to rival al-jezeera, and those viewers are not going to be charged a license fee. Not that a British license fee can be enforced abroad in the post-colonial period. But are UK TV license feer payers now subsidizing foreign broadcasts?

No. The World Service television and radio channels are paid for by the government, not through the licence fee.

darbooka

The world service budget, even if from the government is paid for by the rest of us. In fact, presumably even by many people who don't pay the license fee. And presumably the world service must occassionally use some content, reports, material and other resources which is produced by those whose salaries come from license fee revenues.