Should the TV License be scrapped?

[Studio25]

Originally Posted by Michael1954

I'm a bit confused. See post 39 about streaming.

I don't know why you're confused - the TVLI quote BG mentions says quite clearly that you need a licence if you are watching or delaying live TV, which is what I said in my post.

Originally Posted by RainbowSix

My source is the law (ISTR communications act 2003), not the TVLI.

That law states in section 368 paragraph 1 that the definitions it covers are subject to the regulations made by the secretary of state. In other words a TV is whatever the government decides it is. It also goes on to give a non-exhaustive list of what qualifies as a TV device. Have you actually read it?

Originally Posted by RainbowSix

Whatever the TVLI website says is often misleading and designed to fool you into buying a license when you do not need one.

I think you're kidding yourself. Most government departments that are trying to get money from pretty much every household in the country are more interested in what's fair than in how much they get. Especially national ones like DVLA, HMRC and TVLI. If the government needed more money from one of these, they wouldn't lie about the qualifying criteria, they'd just put the price up. Because they can.

TVLI appear to be heavy-handed because they work on the assumption that everyone watches some TV in their home at some point. It follows that people who say they don't need a licence either

1. really don't need one or
2. are lying

The first category are a complete minority and they have to go through all the aggro because there are more people in the second category.

You might disagree with my interpretation of what qualifies as licensable TV, but I can bet that if ever you're caught, the district judge who hands out the fine will disagree with you too.

Originally Posted by accyman

seems to me that the BBC are everywhere but were the only ones subject to a tv licence

It's worse than you think. There are some services that the BBC produces for the rest of the world that people in the UK aren't allowed to access - because although it's made by an organisation funded by UK citizens, we're not the intended audience.

[Studio25]

Originally Posted by Boeing Guy

I asked first!
...The Communications Act 2003, was pre Streaming, I am sure it will be amended soon, just because it does not say Stream as opposed to TV this has yet to be proven in court.

It does quote digital TV, and it doesn't specify broadcast over radio waves, so I think streaming is already covered.

Originally Posted by accyman

someone said to me they can check your internet history to see if you have watched a live stream on iplayer

i havnt really looked into that claim as it dosnt apply to me personally but i think the term when hell freezes over applies to anyone who thinks they can look into my computer without a court order

No need for them to look at your computer. TV companies can easily provide a list of IP addresses receiving streamed live broadcasts. If the government issued a court order to ISPs to provide the home addresses associated with those IPs at that time and date, they would. They already do it for people who share copyrighted films and music.

[accyman]

Originally Posted by Studio25

It's worse than you think. There are some services that the BBC produces for the rest of the world that people in the UK aren't allowed to access - because although it's made by an organisation funded by UK citizens, we're not the intended audience.

you mean like that hardcore porn bbc put out i referred to lol

with how easy governments of both parties are bribed it wouldnt surprise me if the BBC got handed down even more rights/powers at some point to counter alternatives to the bbc

its a complete joke that every household in the UK with a tv is expected to give money to one company just because government says so

mind you im not too keen on sky either you pay a subscription so you can have shows with adverts and pay a tv licence as well..

but sky wont try to throw you in prison or make you a criminal if you dont have one of their boxes plugged into your tv

i think my stance on this is more than clear i dont think i have owt further of worth adding so the channel i refer to as Broadcasters Buggering Children can whistle dixie and i wish it a speedy demise

the bbc maybe an institution but it not one we should be proud of and willing to keep infact recent events have made it a national embarrassment to the entire world

sometimes sorry just dosnt cut it infact i dont think they have apologized to the millions of people they betrayed and let down yet although if an apology was broadcast i wouldnt have seen it

[RainbowSix]

I can categorically state that "if you are watching streaming TV that is not live (at the same time as it is broadcast) then you do NOT need a license."

So if it is delayed or catch,up then it does not need a license.

Can you point to a section of the act that says you do?

Streaming TV is only covered by the license when broadcast TV is being watched "at the same time it is being broadcast".
This is nothing to do with where the source is, it is the timing of it.

For instance, if someone records TV then plays it back so that you can watch it - you do not need a license because it is not being watched at the same time it was broadcast.

STudio25 - you seem to be confusing what I have said, I said nothing about what constitutes a TV?

[Boeing Guy]

According to this: https://www.gov.uk/government/upload..._Text-L-PB.pdf

It is an offence.
On the first page.

A television licence is required to watch live or nearly live broadcast television content on any electronic device in the United Kingdom. Responsibility for collecting the licence fee lies with the BBC, which operates under the trading name TV Licensing.

Written by a QC, so good luck if you ever go to court.

[accyman]

my son has just started university and he is using the student accommodation which is around a hundred or so rooms within a building which are just about big enough for a single bed , a small desk and a single upright wardrobe

each room no bigger than a prison cell has to have its own tv licence they cant share one throughout the building

left my son with KODI and instructions not to open his door to anyone he dosnt know and to keep the tv ariel out of his tv

i would have cut it off at the wall but that would probably get him in trouble but he dosnt watch live tv and like me dosnt rate UK tv shows that much either so all his viewing is either not avialable in the UK yet or has already aired

hes doing a media degree in film and advertising by coincidence a course that the bbc should think of sending its employees on so they can earn their money instead of relying on the bbc tax system

[RainbowSix]

Can you define "nearly live" ??

A few seconds delay and your likely still within that, but several minutes away and it's not "nearly live".

[Boeing Guy]

I don't have to, I am not your defense lawyer. As I said earlier, if you find yourself in court, good luck

[Studio25]

Originally Posted by RainbowSix

Can you define "nearly live" ??

Well if I was defining it - it would be defined as:
An analogue or digital audio visual feed which is produced from the same source as a UHF broadcast.

That means that any of the channels broadcast to be received by a TV, any recordings (digital or analogue) made of the same, any streams sourced from the same, any recordings of streams (digital or analogue) sourced from the same.

As far as I can tell, that covers everything that the government says meets the requirement for owning a licence.

...and I'm sure you know that only too well. Otherwise you wouldn't be factoring the cost of a VPN into the alternatives to owning a TV licence.

[RainbowSix]

But that definition is wrong.

The source is of no issue, it is the timing of it.
It is a common known fact that you do not need a TV license to watch TV unless it is being broadcast at the same time, or in other words - watch the TV that is being broadcast.

catch up TV is excluded from the license fee, the content is irrelevent.

So watching what "was" live tv but it is now not live (because it has been delayed) is excluded from the requirements of needing a license.

But you don't need to believe me on this, perhaps go and ask Martin Lewis - he's clever enough to know the ins & outs and his site agrees with what I have said, if he posted incorrect info then there are thousands of those that are ni the know who put him right and it gets changed the same day.

[Studio25]

Originally Posted by RainbowSix

catch up TV is excluded from the license fee, the content is irrelevent.

I haven't mentioned catch up TV anywhere.

You taking a live TV broadcast, offsetting it by 5mins, and then watching the result is not "catch up". Nor is recording "Bake Off" on tape and then watching it at a later date.

Originally Posted by RainbowSix

So watching what "was" live tv but it is now not live (because it has been delayed) is excluded from the requirements of needing a license.

So you keep saying - but you never actually get as far as providing a reliable source for that statement. It is just your opinion.

Those who don't agree with you on this thread have provided links to the TV licensing page that tells you that you need one, and the legislation that states whatever is asserted on the TVLI website is the legal basis for decisions.

Originally Posted by RainbowSix

...But you don't need to believe me on this, perhaps go and ask Martin Lewis - he's clever enough to know the ins & outs and his site agrees with what I have said, if he posted incorrect info then there are thousands of those that are ni the know who put him right and it gets changed the same day.

I'm afraid that searching sites to provide evidence to support your argument is your job. We've provided the links supporting our argument. You've provided nothing but an opinion.

However, assuming you mean this article - it also quite categorically states that you are wrong.

You'll still need a TV licence if you record 'live TV' content at the time of broadcast, using a digital recorder like Sky+ or TiVo (or a good old-fashioned VHS recorder).

This is because you're recording them as they are being shown on a TV channel. It doesn't matter when you watch them, or how they were recorded - you still need a licence.

If you watch TV programmes when they're are broadcast you must be covered by a valid TV licence, regardless of:

• Which channel you're watching
• Which device you are using to watch
• How you receive the content (terrestrial, satellite, cable, via the internet, etc).

And yes, I agree with everything he says in the article and it matches my understanding of whether you need a licence.

[Boeing Guy]

My feelings exactly.
Love the younfact ones video. Forgot about that.

[mallard]

its most repeats on the tv.

[RainbowSix]

YOu have what I have said wrong, you are interpreting the above wrong.

If you watch TV programmes when they're are broadcast

Is EXACTLY what I have said, "when they are broadcast" - "at the same time as it is broadcast" these are NOT watching streaming services that have been delayed so that they are not watched "at the same time as they are broadcast".

You want links, use the same ones you have given.

The crux of the matter is the watching broadcast TV at the same time as it is being broadcast - if you are doing anything else such as watching a dvd, watching a downloaded film, as downloaded copy of a program, or even a streamed replay of what was live - you do NOT need a license, as long as you are not watching it at the same time as it is broadcast.

[Boeing Guy]

Okay so we will agree to disagree.
As I said before, good luck if you go to court.