TV Licensing - Bloody Cheek!!

[zacklaws]

If you search the relevant documents you will find this in the Communications Act 2003:-

>>>368 Meanings of “television receiver” and “use”

(3) References in this Part to using a television receiver are references to using it for receiving television programmes.<<<


Which means simply that you are Ok to just use your TV to watch video's, DVD's etc so long as your not receiving

And in the,

>>>Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006

Licences and exemptions

(1) It is unlawful—
(a) to establish or use a wireless telegraphy station, or
( to instal or use wireless telegraphy apparatus,
except under and in accordance with a licence (a “wireless telegraphy licence”) granted under this section by OFCOM.


(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to—
(a) the use of a television receiver (within the meaning of Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003) for receiving a television programme; or
( the installation of a television receiver for use solely for that purpose.<<<


Those regulations are at a guess for Radio Hams, Broadcasting stations or anyone else who use radio equipment to broadcast and receive and not people with TV's

 

[zacklaws]

Took some finding on the TV licensing site but I finally found it but I still cannot find there regulations that I had printed out:-

What if I only use a TV to watch videos/DVDs/as a monitor for my games console? Do I still need a licence?


You do not need a TV Licence if you only use your TV to watch videos and DVDs or as a monitor for your games console.
However, please notify us in writing that this is the case. One of our Enforcement Officers may visit you to confirm that you do not need a licence.



http://tvlicensing.metafaq.com/temp...opicID=$general&id=MOPEPIJORPR59BBRVP91U4TAAG

 

[purplepolly]

At switchover the digital signal can be received by all but 1 in 5,000 existing aerial systems that can receive the lowest grade of watchable analogue signal.

Tried it already. I get a more than watchable analogue signal but can't get a halfway watchable digital signal. It is of course possible that there's some kind of interference with the digital signal that doesn't affect analogue - I've got a personal dab /fm radio and if I'm on a virgin pendolino the digital signal dies as soon as the engines start up but fm still works.

 

[classic33]

Taken from http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/index.jsp

You must be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV. It makes no difference what equipment you use - whether it’s a laptop, PC, mobile phone, digital box, DVD recorder or a TV set - you still need a licence.

You do not need a TV Licence to view video clips on the internet, as long as what you are viewing is not being shown on TV at the same time as you are viewing it.

If you use a digital box with a hi-fi system, or another device that can only be used to produce sounds and can't display TV programmes, and you don't install or use any other TV receiving equipment, you don't need a TV Licence.

We have CCTV at work & were told that we required a licence to use them. Disagreed & later sent them the above as a print screen.

 

[marinyork]

Tried it already. I get a more than watchable analogue signal but can't get a halfway watchable digital signal. It is of course possible that there's some kind of interference with the digital signal that doesn't affect analogue - I've got a personal dab /fm radio and if I'm on a virgin pendolino the digital signal dies as soon as the engines start up but fm still works.

There is interference between digital and analogue tv signals, it's why the power is turned down so low on digital.

 

[Crankarm]

So watching anything on the internet as long as it is not being broadcast at the same time on the terrestial TV network is fine? So BBC i-player is fine without a license?

But merely possessing equipment to receive live broadcasts although you don't actually watch TV would require a license? I ask this as what if you decided you'd decided to hang up your sofa specs and not watch TV ever again, would you have to climb on your roof and take down the TV aerial and remove connecting aerial leads to the set top box or TV? Or would it be possible to say I don't watch TV anymore on principle as it is all repeats repeats repeats and crap or that it is too expensive so shove your license fee but still leave your aerial in place? I thought they had to catch you in the act as it were unless as has been previously posted the legislation now says that merely possessing equipment capable of receiving TV broadcasts requires a TV license.

Because the option is to watch the only few good programmes on i-player and channel4 on demand. For the rest there's radio. Cut out conventional TV and paying the exorbitant license fee every year.

 

[marinyork]

Just take a cable run out. No need to do the whole thing.

 

[punkypossum]

Hmmm....I might just get my license cancelled then - my telly gets turned on about 10 times a year, if that. Apart from that I use it to watch vids and dvd's, so with i player being allowed, I could quite happily live without it. Have considered this for a while, but trying to prove that I wasn't watching any telly on the telly just seemed too much hassle, so I've been paying up and switching it on occasionally.

Wish you could get a pay as you go license, like 50p a program or something like that - it would be so much easier and cheaper!!!!

 

[NickM]

...merely possessing equipment to receive live broadcasts although you don't actually watch TV would require a license?

You possess equipment "capable of receiving" TV if you have a television into which an aerial is plugged.

Unplug the aerial, and you don't.

 

[User482]

You do not need a TV Licence if you only use your TV to watch videos and DVDs or as a monitor for your games console.
However, please notify us in writing that this is the case. One of our Enforcement Officers may visit you to confirm that you do not need a licence.

Some friends of mine did exactly that, and notified the licencing authority. It was no problem at all - they just disconnected their aerial.

 

[Crankarm]

Their ears must have been burning as I got my TV licensing renewal this morning demanding payment. In the last few years I have set up a DD to pay monthly then cancelled it after the 6th payment when the amount I have paid equals the license fee so they don't get money up front.

I think when this current license runs out I won't bother watching TV as most of it is crap and repeats, so won't renew, simply not worth it. The wireless is a lot more informative.

 

[Theseus]

Are you allowed to cut the side of the box out so that you can see the screen?

 

[Dan B]

Aha! Found the case I referred to above. It was Rudd vs. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1987].

The judges clearly stated that having equipment 'installed' was enough for an inference to be drawn (i.e. they didn't have to prove that the equipment was being used) and for an offence to have been committed. As far as I am aware, there is no subsequent case law which overturns or amends this precedent.

Thanks Reg, I wasn't aware of that

Googling and finding http://www.jifvik.org/tv/jewell.htm (scroll right down to the Appendix) it seems still not as clear-cut as you draw it

I recognise that this conclusion may create problems for the enforcing authorities in so far as it means that they cannot simply rely upon the fact that the relevant apparatus was available for use. They will, I fear, have to go further and will if necessary have to persuade the court to draw the inference that the apparatus in question was used by the defendant during the relevant period.But I trust and believe that if, for example, a television set in working order is found in the sitting room of a house occupied by the defendant, it will not be difficult for a court to draw the necessary inference in the absence of some credible explanation by the defendant to the effect that it was not being used.

So, the judgment doesn't create an absolute offence of installing a TV set, it merely says that if you have installed it the court will infer your reason in doing so was to watch it. My credible explanation to the contrary: that it is used for watching DVDs (it is plugged into a DVD player) and youtube clips/downloads (it is plugged into a computer) and additionally that it is not plugged into an aerial nor (as far as I know anyway) is the tuner tuned in. I don't even own an aerial lead which will reach from the wall socket to where the TV set is positioned.

WRT the Communications Act it all seems to hang on the meaning of "install", which they have omitted to define. I don't know if there's precedent there. Personally I'd be unimpressed if I hired a TV installer and he neglected to plug the aerial in or tune the presets, though.

 

[classic33]

Licence not required for the use of a TV when used in CCTV. No modifications made to the set. There is nothing to stop you having it on.

Fit an ariel, tune it in so that broadcast channels can be received & your away.

That is as clear cut as is possible.

 

[Davidc]

Tried it already. I get a more than watchable analogue signal but can't get a halfway watchable digital signal. It is of course possible that there's some kind of interference with the digital signal that doesn't affect analogue - I've got a personal dab /fm radio and if I'm on a virgin pendolino the digital signal dies as soon as the engines start up but fm still works.

The digital signal you get before switch over is irrelevant. The service after switchover has a power designed to give at least the same service area as the analogue service it replaces. Generaly the transmitter power is set to give better coverage.

If your transmitter is one which carries the pre changeover freeview service (even if it's too weak for you to receive) you will get the full set of digital channels. If your transmitter has no pre changeover digital service you will get a reduced public service only set of channels, which still includes 6 BBC, 4 ITV, Channel 4 and some of its extras, Five and some of its extras, and several more.

It is still a common misconception that there is a relationship between reception of the temporary very low power digital TV service that's been on the air since about 1998, latterly as Freeview, and the new all digital TV service we're all changing over to. There isn't. The new service will have over 99.8% population coverage (as did analogue), will use high power channels*, and in almost all cases will give better reception on existing aerials than does the analogue service.

*The actual peak power for each multiplex will normally be lower than the peak power for the present analogue services, simply because the digital service doesn't need as much to give the same service area.