| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by GBM at 09:16, 26th April 2025 |     |
Happy to pay for a BBC licence.
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by Chris from Nailsea at 23:12, 25th April 2025 | |
An update, from the BBC:
BBC licence fee 'unenforceable', says culture secretary
Lisa Nandy has previously said the licence fee was "deeply regressive"
The culture secretary has said the BBC's licence fee is "unenforceable" and insisted "no options are off the table" when the government begins a review into the corporation's current funding model later this year.
In an interview with the Telegraph, Lisa Nandy said there were "problems" with the annual charge, with "fewer and fewer people" paying the £174.50 fee.
The charter, which expires in 2027 and is under review, is an agreement between the BBC and the government that sets out the terms and purposes of the corporation - including the existence of the licence fee.
A BBC spokeswoman said the broadcaster looks forward to engaging with the government and securing the long-term future of the BBC.
Nandy has already started negotiations with the BBC about the corporation's funding. It currently gets most of its income from the licence fee - in the last financial year, the BBC received £3.7bn, or about two-thirds of its total income, from it.
"We're open to a different system," she told the Telegraph, but admitted no preferred options had been put forward yet. She added the government wanted the public's input in shaping the new model to create "a fairer, more sustainable system".
According to the BBC, 80% of households currently pay the licence fee.
Nandy also said she had been "very concerned" about the way the fee had been enforced in the past as it had been found to disproportionately target women. Two BBC reviews found the gender disparity had been due to societal factors.
The review in 2017 detailed a gender skew towards women-only households, a greater likelihood of women answering the door to TV Licensing Enquiry Officers and a higher chance of them engaging positively with an officer.
In 2023, the BBC set out plans to reduce the high proportion of women being prosecuted for licence fee evasion, after figures showed that they made up 76% of the 52,376 people convicted over it in 2020.
Nandy has previously said the charge was "deeply regressive" and that she was thinking "quite radically and creatively" about alternatives. But the minister has ruled out using general taxation to fund the BBC. She did, however, keep open the possibility of a subscription model.
Last month in a Sunday Times interview, the corporation's chairman suggested wealthier households could be charged more.
A BBC spokeswoman said: "The public cares about the BBC and we have launched our biggest ever public engagement exercise, so audiences can help drive and shape what they want from a universal and independent BBC in the future. We want to continue to reform and evolve and look forward to engaging with government on the next Charter and securing the long-term future of the BBC."
Lisa Nandy has previously said the licence fee was "deeply regressive"
The culture secretary has said the BBC's licence fee is "unenforceable" and insisted "no options are off the table" when the government begins a review into the corporation's current funding model later this year.
In an interview with the Telegraph, Lisa Nandy said there were "problems" with the annual charge, with "fewer and fewer people" paying the £174.50 fee.
The charter, which expires in 2027 and is under review, is an agreement between the BBC and the government that sets out the terms and purposes of the corporation - including the existence of the licence fee.
A BBC spokeswoman said the broadcaster looks forward to engaging with the government and securing the long-term future of the BBC.
Nandy has already started negotiations with the BBC about the corporation's funding. It currently gets most of its income from the licence fee - in the last financial year, the BBC received £3.7bn, or about two-thirds of its total income, from it.
"We're open to a different system," she told the Telegraph, but admitted no preferred options had been put forward yet. She added the government wanted the public's input in shaping the new model to create "a fairer, more sustainable system".
According to the BBC, 80% of households currently pay the licence fee.
Nandy also said she had been "very concerned" about the way the fee had been enforced in the past as it had been found to disproportionately target women. Two BBC reviews found the gender disparity had been due to societal factors.
The review in 2017 detailed a gender skew towards women-only households, a greater likelihood of women answering the door to TV Licensing Enquiry Officers and a higher chance of them engaging positively with an officer.
In 2023, the BBC set out plans to reduce the high proportion of women being prosecuted for licence fee evasion, after figures showed that they made up 76% of the 52,376 people convicted over it in 2020.
Nandy has previously said the charge was "deeply regressive" and that she was thinking "quite radically and creatively" about alternatives. But the minister has ruled out using general taxation to fund the BBC. She did, however, keep open the possibility of a subscription model.
Last month in a Sunday Times interview, the corporation's chairman suggested wealthier households could be charged more.
A BBC spokeswoman said: "The public cares about the BBC and we have launched our biggest ever public engagement exercise, so audiences can help drive and shape what they want from a universal and independent BBC in the future. We want to continue to reform and evolve and look forward to engaging with government on the next Charter and securing the long-term future of the BBC."
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by Sixty3Closure at 11:58, 22nd April 2017 | |
Not sure the problem is specifically with the BBC but rather out sourcing and tendering itself. The BBC was encouraged/forced by legislation to put the collection out to tender (as with so many public sector services) so its probably not surprising that the companies running these can get er...creative to maximise profits.
Also anyone who's run an out sourced service will no that that you don't get involved in the detail as that's the whole point of the contract.
I think as a general point though its whether you want public services paid for in ways like the licence fee or not - bit like the trains really. I'm sure many car drivers feel equally strongly about rail subsidies.
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by Western Pathfinder at 11:10, 28th February 2017 | |
In the old days TV licensing used to be run from an office next to Bristol Bus Station before it was put out to tender .
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by Fourbee at 10:43, 28th February 2017 | |
From the BBC:
Damian Collins, Conservative MP and chairman of the Commons culture committee, told the Daily Mail: "It's very concerning. This is being done in the BBC's name. The BBC needs to make sure changes are made to the way this contract is being run or that it's taken away from Capita and given to someone else."
Except, it's not been done in the BBC's name though, is it? Perhaps that is a small part of the problem.
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by Chris from Nailsea at 20:35, 27th February 2017 | |
From the BBC:
BBC investigating TV licence fee collectors
The BBC has ordered an investigation into reports TV licence fee collectors targeted vulnerable people, spurred on by an aggressive incentive scheme.
An investigation by the Daily Mail said bosses at Capita, which collects the fee, promised bonuses of up to £15,000 a year to catch 28 evaders a week.
Capita said those statements "do not reflect the high standards we expect".
BBC Director General Tony Hall said Capita had "fallen short" of standards it expected on behalf of the UK public.
The government said it would talk to the BBC about the company's conduct.
The Daily Mail sent a reporter to interview for a job at Capita, and allegedly found staff being pushed to gather evidence to take as many people to court as possible.
One interviewer was recorded saying: "We will drive you as hard as we can to get as much as we can out of you because we're greedy."
According to the paper, the company's 330 field officers are told they must hit a target number of evaders, known as the "magic 28", and for each person they catch over that, they can be paid an extra £20 to £25.
The BBC's director general, Tony Hall, said he wanted "urgent confirmation" that the interview questions were not "standard practice", vulnerable people were not being targeted, and that Capita was taking "appropriate action" over the incident.
In a letter to Capita's CEO, Andy Parker, he said: "Public trust is the cornerstone of the licence fee system. It is clear that, in this instance, Capita has fallen short of the standards the BBC has a right to expect on behalf of the British public."
The BBC added that it expected licence fee officers to "behave in a courteous, professional manner and abide by a published code of conduct".
Capita said its incentive scheme only applied to sales of licence fees and it only prosecuted as a last resort.
A spokesman added: "Capita is required by the BBC to ensure households are not breaking the law. Officers are expected to act in a professional manner. We strongly refute any allegation that officers are instructed to act outside of these requirements. Where we find employees have not acted as they should we act appropriately."
Downing Street said ministers would be raising the conduct of the enforcement officers with the BBC. "Clearly, these are concerning reports," a No 10 spokesman said. "The licence fee does need to be collected in a fair and reasonable manner. I see the BBC has quite rightly ordered an urgent investigation into these reports."
Damian Collins, Conservative MP and chairman of the Commons culture committee, told the Daily Mail: "It's very concerning. This is being done in the BBC's name. The BBC needs to make sure changes are made to the way this contract is being run or that it's taken away from Capita and given to someone else."
Labour MP Chris Matheson, who also sits on the committee, called for Capita bosses to be summoned to Parliament.
In 2015, 166,000 people were fined for licence fee evasion. The maximum penalty for watching BBC channels or iPlayer without a licence is £1,000.
In January, new sentencing guidelines were introduced meaning magistrates can impose a non-financial penalty, known as a conditional discharge, so the person will not be sentenced unless they commit another offence.
This will only be used in cases where people have made significant efforts to pay the fee.
The BBC has ordered an investigation into reports TV licence fee collectors targeted vulnerable people, spurred on by an aggressive incentive scheme.
An investigation by the Daily Mail said bosses at Capita, which collects the fee, promised bonuses of up to £15,000 a year to catch 28 evaders a week.
Capita said those statements "do not reflect the high standards we expect".
BBC Director General Tony Hall said Capita had "fallen short" of standards it expected on behalf of the UK public.
The government said it would talk to the BBC about the company's conduct.
The Daily Mail sent a reporter to interview for a job at Capita, and allegedly found staff being pushed to gather evidence to take as many people to court as possible.
One interviewer was recorded saying: "We will drive you as hard as we can to get as much as we can out of you because we're greedy."
According to the paper, the company's 330 field officers are told they must hit a target number of evaders, known as the "magic 28", and for each person they catch over that, they can be paid an extra £20 to £25.
The BBC's director general, Tony Hall, said he wanted "urgent confirmation" that the interview questions were not "standard practice", vulnerable people were not being targeted, and that Capita was taking "appropriate action" over the incident.
In a letter to Capita's CEO, Andy Parker, he said: "Public trust is the cornerstone of the licence fee system. It is clear that, in this instance, Capita has fallen short of the standards the BBC has a right to expect on behalf of the British public."
The BBC added that it expected licence fee officers to "behave in a courteous, professional manner and abide by a published code of conduct".
Capita said its incentive scheme only applied to sales of licence fees and it only prosecuted as a last resort.
A spokesman added: "Capita is required by the BBC to ensure households are not breaking the law. Officers are expected to act in a professional manner. We strongly refute any allegation that officers are instructed to act outside of these requirements. Where we find employees have not acted as they should we act appropriately."
Downing Street said ministers would be raising the conduct of the enforcement officers with the BBC. "Clearly, these are concerning reports," a No 10 spokesman said. "The licence fee does need to be collected in a fair and reasonable manner. I see the BBC has quite rightly ordered an urgent investigation into these reports."
Damian Collins, Conservative MP and chairman of the Commons culture committee, told the Daily Mail: "It's very concerning. This is being done in the BBC's name. The BBC needs to make sure changes are made to the way this contract is being run or that it's taken away from Capita and given to someone else."
Labour MP Chris Matheson, who also sits on the committee, called for Capita bosses to be summoned to Parliament.
In 2015, 166,000 people were fined for licence fee evasion. The maximum penalty for watching BBC channels or iPlayer without a licence is £1,000.
In January, new sentencing guidelines were introduced meaning magistrates can impose a non-financial penalty, known as a conditional discharge, so the person will not be sentenced unless they commit another offence.
This will only be used in cases where people have made significant efforts to pay the fee.
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by A V Lowe at 13:46, 16th July 2010 | |
Dipped into this - if you read the licence it is for the use of equipment which is capable of receiving (broadcast) television signals - I had for many years had VCR's and CRT/monitors which did not received TV signals and happily ignored TVL until the mother in law's complaints that she could not see Dead Enders and Consternation Street had me caving in fro domestic peace.
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by moonrakerz at 22:37, 16th May 2010 | |
I wouldn't really consider it a tax (as such) and therefore wouldn't replace it with a tax but rather make the BBC get their own income.
One of the things that I discovered in my reasearch when engaged in my battle with TVL is that the Licence is classified as a tax. This was done so that the revenue raised by the Licence would count as part of GDP. Damn' clever what ?
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by JayMac at 22:26, 16th May 2010 | |
There was one scoop that Brillo got on the boat - the interview with Tory party donor and non-dom Lord Ashcroft.
One thing that really annoyed me about the BBC's Election Night coverage was Dimbleby talking over sucessful candidates' acceptence speeches. Couldn't the statistical breakdown of the results waited a few minutes so we could here what our new elected representatives had to say? I had to constantly switch to Sky News to hear winning candidates speak.
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by devon_metro at 21:52, 16th May 2010 | |
The coverage didn't get off to a good start either, as they ditched the dramatic music that had been used for Election Nights since 1979 in place of a piece that I'd forgotten even before it had finished.
Not to mention one of the big TV screens breaking!
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by John R at 21:32, 16th May 2010 | |
I agree, even if their Election Night boat party was awful. But I figured it gave the studio a few minutes breathing space every few minutes to avoid the spectacle of Dimbleby tucking into a bacon sandwich, which happened on a previous occasion. And 20k is a drop in the ocean (or should that be the Thames) in terms of the budget for the night's broadcast. I suspect the only effect it had was that it was the trigger for weary viewers to decide that maybe now was a good time to switch off and get some sleep.
The coverage didn't get off to a good start either, as they ditched the dramatic music that had been used for Election Nights since 1979 in place of a piece that I'd forgotten even before it had finished.
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by JayMac at 21:17, 16th May 2010 | |
I'm gonna defend the BBC now. I am happy to pay around ^12 a month for the range of services that the BBC provides. 8 national television channels (9 if you've got HD), 10 national radio stations and countless regional ones, bbc.co.uk, BBC iPlayer. And all free of commercial advertising. Intra-corporation advertising is a little annoying however.
Outside of the license fee it provides excellent educational services to learners of all ages, The World Service, professional concert orchestras and a diverse range of magazines.
What I am not happy about however is how Capita Group go about TV license enforcement.
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by JayMac at 20:19, 16th May 2010 | |
Imagine how much of the license fee would be wasted on postage if the BBC replied to every 'reasoned argument'.
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by devon_metro at 20:17, 16th May 2010 | |
Personally, the one thing that makes the beeb stand out from the crowd is the lack of annoying adverts.
It won't be long before ITV (or another commercial operator) has adverts sponsored by a company, as almost all of their shows are sponsored
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by Brucey at 20:14, 16th May 2010 | |
Given there appears to be considerable resentment to paying the TV license, and continuing difficult in collection, maybe the government ought to consdier abolishing it and replacing it with a tax that is easier to collect and more in line with technological advances.
I wouldn't really consider it a tax (as such) and therefore wouldn't replace it with a tax but rather make the BBC get their own income.The breakdown of the licence fee shows that only 69% is spent on TV. This could easily be raised by cutting back on expenses and showing adverts.
9% is spent on the digital switchover: this could perhaps be raised as a levy on broadcasting companies (in a similar way to the FSA levy that applies to financial firms).
The rest of the fee is spent on things that you don't need a licence (or even be in the UK): radio and internet. I'd be happy if BBC radio played commercial adverts and they had "cheaper" presenters. Same online, a few adverts here and there (especially for users outside the UK) wouldn't go amiss.
However, advertising may restrict the beeb's role of (supposedly) remaining independent.
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by moonrakerz at 20:05, 16th May 2010 | |
Given there appears to be considerable resentment to paying the TV license, and continuing difficult in collection, maybe the government ought to consdier abolishing it and replacing it with a tax that is easier to collect and more in line with technological advances.
You are right on two counts: I (and many, many others) resent paying for the BBC to waste my money on p***-ups for Z list "celebrities" on election night - Joan Collins pontificating on the election !!!!!!!!
The BBC Trust started an investigation to look into the way the TV licence was collected (in 2008). There was a questionnaire to download and fill in along with any comments you would like to make. I did this, along with a very (well, I thought so !) reasoned argument as to why the licence in its present form was well past its sell by date.
I never even received an acknowledgement ......................
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by devon_metro at 19:36, 16th May 2010 | |
I was told I have to have a TV license because I have a computer (well three actually) in my flat. I do not own an games console, but do watch BBC iPlayer/4oD etc on my computer. I do not own a TV nor do I have one in my flat. Yet i'm told I have to pay because of my PC's.
I work in IT and have a very good understanding of how these things work. Now most people who are on an ADSL connection (Broadband over the telephone line) will be issued an IP Address through a tool called DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol). This is basically a server that listens for a request from your router/modem, and gives it an IP (A number used to communicate with other servers etc). When the PPPoA username/password negociations (sp?) are processed. The dynamic part means your IP address changes every time your router/modem reconnects to your ISP's servers.
Now if you look at an ISP like BT for example, they will have what is called a subnet pool of IP addresses to issue to your modem/router with... to give you an idea, the majority of internet subnets run on what is called a Class A subnet (255.0.0.0) Which can hold just over 16 million nodes! the range for class A addresses runs from 1.x.x.x - 126.x.x.x so if you do a quick calculation of 16M * 127 gives you an idea of how much class A subnet nodes you can have
I could talk about the other subnets like Class B, C & D but I won't for a fear of being too technical
So if you were to watch a live stream from your attic space from the BBC, then restart your router (provided your on dynamic addressing) your IP address will change, and your previous one will be allocated to another router, that could be 2 or 200 miles away! TVL would have to prove what time you were watching the live stream, and also prove that your router had that IP address at the exact date/time and it was the SAME router...! So if you decide to oust your BT HomeHub 2 for a nice little Cisco Linksys bit of kit, they can't prove you had that IP because your router was not the same
So really i'd say the chances of getting caught are very very remote... You just have to look at how many people trust BT Broadband... The log files for the IP addresses are huge and someone would have the mundane job of trying to prove you actually had that IP on that router... BT Openreach (A BT Group company who one and maintain the POTS/21CN) network would indeed charge a nice little sum for that service...
Technical babble over...
* disclaimer * - I am not in any way saying you should stop paying TV License or should try and cheat the system, just saying the likelihood of getting caught is remote
I work in IT and have a very good understanding of how these things work. Now most people who are on an ADSL connection (Broadband over the telephone line) will be issued an IP Address through a tool called DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol). This is basically a server that listens for a request from your router/modem, and gives it an IP (A number used to communicate with other servers etc). When the PPPoA username/password negociations (sp?) are processed. The dynamic part means your IP address changes every time your router/modem reconnects to your ISP's servers.
Now if you look at an ISP like BT for example, they will have what is called a subnet pool of IP addresses to issue to your modem/router with... to give you an idea, the majority of internet subnets run on what is called a Class A subnet (255.0.0.0) Which can hold just over 16 million nodes! the range for class A addresses runs from 1.x.x.x - 126.x.x.x so if you do a quick calculation of 16M * 127 gives you an idea of how much class A subnet nodes you can have
I could talk about the other subnets like Class B, C & D but I won't for a fear of being too technicalSo if you were to watch a live stream from your attic space from the BBC, then restart your router (provided your on dynamic addressing) your IP address will change, and your previous one will be allocated to another router, that could be 2 or 200 miles away! TVL would have to prove what time you were watching the live stream, and also prove that your router had that IP address at the exact date/time and it was the SAME router...! So if you decide to oust your BT HomeHub 2 for a nice little Cisco Linksys bit of kit, they can't prove you had that IP because your router was not the same
So really i'd say the chances of getting caught are very very remote... You just have to look at how many people trust BT Broadband... The log files for the IP addresses are huge and someone would have the mundane job of trying to prove you actually had that IP on that router... BT Openreach (A BT Group company who one and maintain the POTS/21CN) network would indeed charge a nice little sum for that service...
Technical babble over...
* disclaimer * - I am not in any way saying you should stop paying TV License or should try and cheat the system, just saying the likelihood of getting caught is remote
Worth bearing in mind, particularly with respect to large University networks ...
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by thetrout at 18:32, 16th May 2010 | |
I think your plan is slightly flawed though John... Just a brief couple of points if I may,
As part of the service the company I work for provide, we offer secure encrypted VPN connections for our customers predominantly using WiFi hotspots, it's a simple connection that allows a user to connect to our servers and then stops people "Packet Sniffing" them on a wifi hotspot... I won't go into too much detail, but the connection will either terminate on a server in the USA or UK depending on their choice
This can be abused because of you select the USA option, you could in theory watch things like Hulu over the connection which has UK IP Address space blocked! So you could use VPN connections and things to potentially access thinks like BBC iPlayer, and thus not pay...?!
Also how would you get around sharing an Internet Connection with your neighbour etc??
Or have I missed the point...?!
Cheers
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by John R at 17:26, 16th May 2010 | |
Given there appears to be considerable resentment to paying the TV license, and continuing difficult in collection, maybe the government ought to consdier abolishing it and replacing it with a tax that is easier to collect and more in line with technological advances.
So, for starters, 1p on every text message sent would raise around 25% of the license fee revenue.
An additional charge on data downloads would enable revenue to be collected from those watching programs online.
The beauty of it is that the companies would be responsible for collection, so there would ne no evasion. You would also make it a condition of operating a mobile phone license or broadband service that the company was incorporated in the UK, thus avoiding the sort of nonsense whereby itunes, google etc, pay no UK tax, and ensuring that the new tax was collected and passed over.
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by Brucey at 17:06, 16th May 2010 | |
I was told I have to have a TV license because I have a computer (well three actually) in my flat. I do not own an games console, but do watch BBC iPlayer/4oD etc on my computer. I do not own a TV nor do I have one in my flat. Yet i'm told I have to pay because of my PC's.
You don't need a TV Licence to own TV receiving equipment and you don't need one for iplayer/4OD. In fact, you can own a TV and still not need a TV licence, if you don't "install" it for receiving television broadcasts (i.e. only use it to watch DVDs or play computer games). If you read between the lines on TVL's communications, they do state this but make it seem that simply possession of TV receiving equipment requires a TV licence.| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by thetrout at 16:59, 16th May 2010 | |
I was told I have to have a TV license because I have a computer (well three actually) in my flat. I do not own an games console, but do watch BBC iPlayer/4oD etc on my computer. I do not own a TV nor do I have one in my flat. Yet i'm told I have to pay because of my PC's.
I work in IT and have a very good understanding of how these things work. Now most people who are on an ADSL connection (Broadband over the telephone line) will be issued an IP Address through a tool called DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol). This is basically a server that listens for a request from your router/modem, and gives it an IP (A number used to communicate with other servers etc). When the PPPoA username/password negociations (sp?) are processed. The dynamic part means your IP address changes every time your router/modem reconnects to your ISP's servers.
Now if you look at an ISP like BT for example, they will have what is called a subnet pool of IP addresses to issue to your modem/router with... to give you an idea, the majority of internet subnets run on what is called a Class A subnet (255.0.0.0) Which can hold just over 16 million nodes! the range for class A addresses runs from 1.x.x.x - 126.x.x.x so if you do a quick calculation of 16M * 127 gives you an idea of how much class A subnet nodes you can have
I could talk about the other subnets like Class B, C & D but I won't for a fear of being too technicalSo if you were to watch a live stream from your attic space from the BBC, then restart your router (provided your on dynamic addressing) your IP address will change, and your previous one will be allocated to another router, that could be 2 or 200 miles away! TVL would have to prove what time you were watching the live stream, and also prove that your router had that IP address at the exact date/time and it was the SAME router...! So if you decide to oust your BT HomeHub 2 for a nice little Cisco Linksys bit of kit, they can't prove you had that IP because your router was not the same
So really i'd say the chances of getting caught are very very remote... You just have to look at how many people trust BT Broadband... The log files for the IP addresses are huge and someone would have the mundane job of trying to prove you actually had that IP on that router... BT Openreach (A BT Group company who one and maintain the POTS/21CN) network would indeed charge a nice little sum for that service...
Technical babble over...
* disclaimer * - I am not in any way saying you should stop paying TV License or should try and cheat the system, just saying the likelihood of getting caught is remote
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by devon_metro at 22:31, 13th May 2010 | |
More appropriately, having to endure some of his "guests"
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by JayMac at 19:06, 13th May 2010 | |
I used my mobile broadband connection to watch TV whilst on the train a few days ago. Would this be covered under the TV licence for my flat? Or would I need a licence for "a Class 158 somewhere between Bristol and Portsmouth"? 
Yes, just as when you take your caravan to the Bude for a summer holiday, end up with the wettest and windiest week for years, and huddle inside all day watching Jeremy Kyle ... you are covered as an extension of your home license
In that instance you should be entitled to a rebate. No-one should have endure Jeremy Vile day in, day out. That's a punishment that should be covered by the Geneva Convention!
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by moonrakerz at 18:01, 13th May 2010 | |
Yes, just as when you take your caravan to the Bude for a summer holiday, end up with the wettest and windiest week for years, and huddle inside all day watching Jeremy Kyle ... you are covered as an extension of your home license
................ONLY if the cat and dog aren't watching the TV in your house while you're away !
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by grahame at 17:04, 13th May 2010 | |
I used my mobile broadband connection to watch TV whilst on the train a few days ago. Would this be covered under the TV licence for my flat? Or would I need a licence for "a Class 158 somewhere between Bristol and Portsmouth"?
Yes, just as when you take your caravan to the Bude for a summer holiday, end up with the wettest and windiest week for years, and huddle inside all day watching Jeremy Kyle ... you are covered as an extension of your home license
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by Brucey at 14:39, 13th May 2010 | |
Not certain on that as streaming requires you to temporarily download if I remember rightly so no doubt your ISP will have a download record so could probably show if you have been streaming live tv. Happy (and hope to be) corrected otherwise quite a few student friends of mine could be up the ceek withput a padle if the get caught
Even this probably wouldn't stand up in court as I could argue that I was watching in licensed premises. E.g. if I didn't have a TV licence but watched TV online at my neighbour's flat (who has a licence) using my wireless internet connection. It would show my IP address but the premises where the TV is being watched is actually licensed, so that would be legal.Also there are ways to mask your IP address. Connecting via my university's VPN will make it look that I'm connected at university premises (which I assume/hope are licensed).
I honestly believe that most TVL prosecutions are down to a) people's ignorance about TVL's (lack of) rights or b) people's stupidity (leaving the curtains open whilst watching TV).
(For the record I have a TV licence, for which I painfully paid ^142.50 - that's 14 returns between Bristol and Portsmouth at the lowest advance rate
)I used my mobile broadband connection to watch TV whilst on the train a few days ago. Would this be covered under the TV licence for my flat? Or would I need a licence for "a Class 158 somewhere between Bristol and Portsmouth"?
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by grahame at 11:33, 12th May 2010 | |
I'm intrigued as to how they can trace you using live streaming on the Internet!
The truth is they can't. ...
I wonder how / if the wider issues of live streaming will be effected by the Digital Economy Act that was rushed through at the end of the last parliament
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2010
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by moonrakerz at 11:07, 12th May 2010 | |
Even the use of Detector Vans (if they even exist/work) is not enough on its own to secure a prosecution.
TVL have admitted that there has never been a prosecution where "detector van" evidence has been used.
Two reasons: (Which TVL do not acknowledge !)
1. This type of evidence is believed to be classified as "covert surveillance", which is the same as telephone tapping. It can only be used on an individual case basis and only when pre-authorised at a high level. This is hardly likely to be given if the reason given is that a Mr bignosemac is suspected of watching Eastenders without a licence !
2. Any prosecution evidence (in any Court case) must be made available to the defence, so that they can query it's viability. The best example of this is speed cameras; all the technical details of these devices are available. If you are a good enough technical wizard you can cause enough doubt on the way the machine is designed/used to "get away with it". TVL have refused to divulge details of what these much vaunted "detector vans" contain - of late they do seem not to have mentioned these so much - they now have "hand held devices" ! Therefore this "evidence" cannot be used.
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by matt473 at 09:16, 12th May 2010 | |
I'm intrigued as to how they can trace you using live streaming on the Internet!
The truth is they can't. The majority of prosecutions for TV License evasion come about because people have made statements to enforcement agents incriminating themselves, or have made the mistake of inviting them in, or have been observed through a window watching broadcast TV.
Even the use of Detector Vans (if they even exist/work) is not enough on its own to secure a prosecution.
Not certain on that as streaming requires you to temporarily download if I remember rightly so no doubt your ISP will have a download record so could probably show if you have been streaming live tv. Happy (and hope to be) corrected otherwise quite a few student friends of mine could be up the ceek withput a padle if the get caught
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by JayMac at 05:38, 12th May 2010 | |
I'm intrigued as to how they can trace you using live streaming on the Internet!
The truth is they can't. The majority of prosecutions for TV License evasion come about because people have made statements to enforcement agents incriminating themselves, or have made the mistake of inviting them in, or have been observed through a window watching broadcast TV.
Even the use of Detector Vans (if they even exist/work) is not enough on its own to secure a prosecution.
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by Chris from Nailsea at 22:37, 11th May 2010 | |
Guilty conscience, devon_metro ??
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by devon_metro at 22:26, 11th May 2010 | |
I'm intrigued as to how they can trace you using live streaming on the Internet!
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by matt473 at 21:24, 11th May 2010 | |
To keep it simple, if you don't watch tv at the same time it's shown on tv but watch it on the likes of Iplayer etc. you do not need a licence fee. This of course is a life saver for many students
(Check when those repeats are on though)
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by JayMac at 18:26, 11th May 2010 | |
Yep. Even a Sky Player subscription online or on an XBox 360 requires a TV license to watch the 'live' streaming channels. Even though Sky Player has no subscription packages that include 'live' streaming of BBC channels.
So if Sky Player was your only access to 'live' TV, you would legally be required to fund a BBC television service for which you had no access!! Madness.
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by Brucey at 18:04, 11th May 2010 | |
Just out of interest (and way off topic I know, sorry!) but, if you only watch TVCatchup via your computer, and have no other equipment in the house or indeed an aerial of any kind, do you need a TV licence?
Yes. If you watch TV as it is broadcast* then you require a TV licence (no matter what you use to watch it with). You don't need a licence for BBC iplayer unless you watch live TV on there.* = This also covers TV which is slightly delayed, e.g. watching online.
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by Phil at 17:55, 11th May 2010 | |
Just out of interest (and way off topic I know, sorry!) but, if you only watch TVCatchup via your computer, and have no other equipment in the house or indeed an aerial of any kind, do you need a TV licence?
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by JayMac at 13:44, 11th May 2010 | |
I too have had my issues with TV Licensing. I have a license for my property, yet still get the threatening letters because of issues with my flat previously being split into two bedsits. I've gone so far as to invite the goon from Crapita into my flat to see that I'm the only occupant and it is no longer split into two bedsits. Over 3 years since moving in I still get letters addressed to "The Legal Occupier, Room 2......". I have managed to stop the calls at the door by withdrawing the implied right of access from TV Licensing and it's agents. The letters keep coming however and I am considering mounting a case for harassment with outside help. My letters to TV Licensing alledging harassment have so far been ignored.
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by moonrakerz at 13:38, 11th May 2010 | |
OK, so you had an unoccupied house where nobody was watching a TV. I hadn't thought of that possibility. I'm not sure it needed a rant about me being bamboozled.
I agree that TVL have a reputation for being aggressive, but then I suspect if they weren't, the number not buying one would be much higher. Just look at all the motorists who aren't insured (or indeed pay road tax), whose costs come back on the rest of us who do pay our insurance.
The "rant" was certainly not aimed at you - if it came across that way, that was not how it was intended.
Many people just do not understand the Law on this subject. For example the majority believe that you need a licence just to own a TV - not so...........................sorry, ranting again !
Don't get me started on "detector vans" ......................................
TVL are awful. I do not have a TV and yet they continue to threaten and hassle me. I refuse to tell them that I don;t have a TV because: 1) it involves using a premium rate number, 2) I am not legally reguired to do so, and 3) experince tells me that they won;t belive me anyway.
100% spot on !
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by Tim at 13:29, 11th May 2010 | |
TVL are awful. I do not have a TV and yet they continue to threaten and hassle me. I refuse to tell them that I don;t have a TV because: 1) it involves using a premium rate number, 2) I am not legally reguired to do so, and 3) experince tells me that they won;t belive me anyway.
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by John R at 13:26, 11th May 2010 | |
I'm confused, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Perhaps you can explain what the circumstances where that exempted you from having a licence when you have a TV connected to an aerial.
I fear that you are one of the many that TVL have bamboozled by their less than honest advertising along with their co-conspirator, the BBC.
I am NOT "exempt" anything - I am obeying the Law of the Land.
The Law says that you require a TV Licence to watch or record LIVE television (regardless of its origin) - full stop !
If I use my TV for watching videos from Blockbuster, or playing on my PS3 or even watching last night's Eastenders that my neighbour recorded for me (there may be copyright issues here - but that doesn't fall under TVL's remit) I DO NOT require a Licence.
You do not have to de-tune or disconnect the TV. You do not have to tell TVL that you do not require a licence (If you do tell them this, they say that they will send someone round to check - therefore they are accusing you of lying - nice people ! Apart from which, if they do visit and you are not watching LIVE TV you are not committing an offence).
You do not have to let them into your house, you do not have to speak to them - unless you wish to tell them to "go away" - in whatever terms you wish !
You can legally ban them from ever setting foot on your property (as I have) - they have issued a statement through Parliament saying that people who do this will not be targeted or harassed as a consequence of their doing this.
Don't get me wrong here, I do have a licence (my "saga" concerned an empty house which I was refurbishing). However, I do think the licence has become outmoded and I think that people who do watch without a licence are stealing from us honest folks who do pay.
What I did object to, most strongly, were the tactics used by TVL, I am old enough and ugly enough to look after myself, but what effect their tactics might have on the elderly and the vulnerable I shudder to think. There are (apocryphal ?) stories of pensioners who do not require a licence actually buying one just to get TVL "off their backs"
Rant over !!
OK, so you had an unoccupied house where nobody was watching a TV. I hadn't thought of that possibility. I'm not sure it needed a rant about me being bamboozled.
I agree that TVL have a reputation for being aggressive, but then I suspect if they weren't, the number not buying one would be much higher. Just look at all the motorists who aren't insured (or indeed pay road tax), whose costs come back on the rest of us who do pay our insurance.
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by grahame at 12:53, 11th May 2010 | |
I'm gonna be heading way off rail topics
... but just to back up your rant. I have had serious problems with TV licensing in the past ... we lived in a house with a front door onto one road and a back door onto another. Two postcodes / addresses - some very nasty letters from them which assumed we were watching TV and assumed that we had no license. And every time we sorted it out, the whole thing started up again three months later. In the end, I threatened to have a go at them for harressment, but pity the less robust sort who got that pressure.
I had always understood that you're assumed innocent until proven guilty ... but that doesn't always seem to be the case in their case, or (regrettably) at times with train ticketing and reasons for going on to platforms at stations.
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by moonrakerz at 12:12, 11th May 2010 | |
I'm confused, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Perhaps you can explain what the circumstances where that exempted you from having a licence when you have a TV connected to an aerial.
I fear that you are one of the many that TVL have bamboozled by their less than honest advertising along with their co-conspirator, the BBC.
I am NOT "exempt" anything - I am obeying the Law of the Land.
The Law says that you require a TV Licence to watch or record LIVE television (regardless of its origin) - full stop !
If I use my TV for watching videos from Blockbuster, or playing on my PS3 or even watching last night's Eastenders that my neighbour recorded for me (there may be copyright issues here - but that doesn't fall under TVL's remit) I DO NOT require a Licence.
You do not have to de-tune or disconnect the TV. You do not have to tell TVL that you do not require a licence (If you do tell them this, they say that they will send someone round to check - therefore they are accusing you of lying - nice people ! Apart from which, if they do visit and you are not watching LIVE TV you are not committing an offence).
You do not have to let them into your house, you do not have to speak to them - unless you wish to tell them to "go away" - in whatever terms you wish !
You can legally ban them from ever setting foot on your property (as I have) - they have issued a statement through Parliament saying that people who do this will not be targeted or harassed as a consequence of their doing this.
Don't get me wrong here, I do have a licence (my "saga" concerned an empty house which I was refurbishing). However, I do think the licence has become outmoded and I think that people who do watch without a licence are stealing from us honest folks who do pay.
What I did object to, most strongly, were the tactics used by TVL, I am old enough and ugly enough to look after myself, but what effect their tactics might have on the elderly and the vulnerable I shudder to think. There are (apocryphal ?) stories of pensioners who do not require to buy a licence actually buying one just to get TVL "off their backs"
Rant over !!
| Re: BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by John R at 11:23, 11th May 2010 | |
I'm confused, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Perhaps you can explain what the circumstances where that exempted you from having a licence when you have a TV connected to an aerial.
| BBC TV Licensing - ongoing discussion Posted by moonrakerz at 10:06, 11th May 2010 | |
I get these letters even though I have a TV Licence (all to do with my flat having both a name and a number). You may find this website interesting where the owner has been sent threatening letters since 2006 and just ignored them. He doesn't have a TV. Apparently TVL haven't taken any action against them and never even visited their property.
I was aware of that site thanks. I am completely au fait with TVL's tactics and I am 100% sure of who does and does not require a Licence.
TVL are not only a bunch of cowboys, they are incompetent. When they replied to my MP's letter they copied it to me as well - well, sort of !
It was addressed to a Mr Webster (NOT my name) who lived in a place called Arminster.
Edit Note: This new topic has been split off from http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=6724.msg67066#msg67066 as that particular discussion was going significantly off-topic. Chris.
