TV licences: 400,000 don't have one, but do you know the law?

rogerblack wrote: »

The article is somewhat incorrect referring to 'live TV'.
You don't need a licence to watch (for example) CNN US or NASA TV streaming at the same time it is broadcast.
You need a licence to watch in real-time a licensed UK TV broadcast station.
You don't need one if you are receiving satellite TV from a broadcaster not regulated under the UK TV broadcast laws, or live youtube or other streaming shows from providers that are not so regulated.

You do need a licence to watch live Sky/BBC/ITV/all commercial UK broadcasters.

Source please?

According to the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004, Part 3, 9(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.

I see no mention or restriction of where those broadcasts originate from.

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Not another licence thread!
Cue the usual suspects queuing up in a never ending spiral of claim and counter claim!
I predict a hundred posts by the end of the week!:eek:

....and, as the first post after the OP contained an inaccurate claim about non-UK TV broadcasts, it's likely that half (at least) of the 100 will be similarly inaccurate!

I think the whole thing either needs to be scrapped or the rules changed.

The fact you can watch all the same content but an hour or so later and not pay a penny is just wrong.

It is a shame it excludes PVRs, I don't watch much live these days but tis all recorded form live streams so I have to pay.

thelawnet wrote: »

Why would you tell the BBC or Crapita anything? Bin the letters, and if they come to your door tell them to go away. We are not accountable to the BBC.

Also this is misleading

"While most of the cash goes to the BBC, the licence is for watching any TV channels 'live' - even if you only watch satellite or cable channels."

Implying that these other channels receive some of the money.

They don't. Only the BBC receive cash, basically the deal is that if you want to watch Sky Sports (etc.) and not the BBC, you still have to pay for the BBC. If you don't watch Sky Sports or the BBC, then you don't have to pay anything.

None of the money goes to the BBC, the BBC gets funding, it 'collects' the licence fee on behalf of the government, just like the road fund licence pays for the roads notionally, I dont drive much & I dont come down your street why should I pay for you to have a road?

William_young wrote: »

None of the money goes to the BBC, the BBC gets funding, it 'collects' the licence fee on behalf of the government, just like the road fund licence pays for the roads notionally, I dont drive much & I dont come down your street why should I pay for you to have a road?

There is no 'road fund licence'.

Vehicle Excise Duty is an emissions-based tax. Electric cars and other low-emission vehicles pay nothing.

The VED tax is not in any way whatsoever connected to spending on the roads, which comes out of general taxation.

It's incredibly stupid to say that the money does not go to the BBC - here is the official position http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/resources/library/BBC/pdf/licence_fee_trust_statement_20120716.pdf

"The BBC collects Licence Fee revenue from customers and transfers it to the HM Government’s Consolidated Fund. The revenue collected is passed back to the BBC as Grant-in-Aid from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)."

In other words the BBC receives the money, and if it can sell more licences, it gets more money.