Lowestoft Online - Why 'some' people may not need a TV License.

	Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Lowestoft Online Forum

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Lowestoft Online > Community > General Community > The Lounge > Topic: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License.

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this board.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 All | Go Down

Author

Topic: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. (Read 1767 times)

CybertraxUK

Guest

Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Posted: 05 April 2011 at 01:21 AM »

Due to many people accusing me of breaking the law (whilst taking threads off topic) I decided it may help to explain - once again - why I believe I and others like myself am exempt from needing a license. I discovered this several years ago whilst browsing the web where others had succeeded using similar arguments, and I have built upon this.

Fact number one: TV Licensing is not operated by the BBC. In actual fact, TV Licensing is operated by a private company, Capita, to process TV License applications and payments. This is subcontracted to them by the BBC Trust, who have the right under law to collect payments for and issue TV Licenses.
- http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/who-we-are-AB4/

Fact number two: TV Licensing has on many occasions misled consumers, and have consequently been fined by both the OFT (Office of Fair Trading) and also Ofcomm (Office of Communications).

Fact number three: Whatever TV Licensing say on their website or to their consumers, they are bound like everyone else to follow the law. In particular, their entire business model must follow the Communications Act 2004.

I believe that I do not need a TV License if I do not watch television 'as it is broadcast'. This is because of the letters that TV Licensing send out, and is also due to my understanding of the Communications Act. It is my belief that if a person watches any type of media file (whether it be something recorded off the television at an earlier date, or a file from the internet) that is not being simul-cast then the requirement to have a TV License has not been met. The term simul-cast relates to it being simultaneously broadcast over the television airwaves. In order to back up my claim, I have for many years been in correspondence with TV Licensing. I do 'not' simply ignore their letters as many other people would do - this isn't a sensible approach. I would much rather be upfront and honest in my approach.

I have attached three documents scanned in earlier; I have many others but they are similar in nature. Two of the documents are letters received by myself from TV Licensing. In the letter dated 2009, they confirm that a person only needs a TV License if they are 'watching' a television programme live, or close-to-live. In that case, using a PVR (personal video recorder) such as Sky+ to pause live TV would be classed under that, and you would need a license.

The other letter dated 2010 confirms that a person does 'not' need a license to watch programmes shown on the BBC iPlayer; this is also relevant (although they fail to mention it) to other video on demand services such as 4 on Demand or Sky Player. Interestingly, this was a source of huge argument against the BBC and the BBC Trust; originally the BBC wanted to make people have a TV License in order to use the iPlayer but the BBC Trust overruled them and said this was contrary to the Communications Act. The BBC are, however, about to use IP technology to charge overseas viewers an access charge to view BBC media, thus in effect managing to charge people overseas a form of TV License!

The third document is a newspaper clipping sent to me a while back from my father (his underlining). This article quotes a study made by the BBC Trust, stating that viewers of on demand media services do 'not' need a TV License, and confirming that only when watching live streams such as watching BBC1 on their website you 'do' need a TV License.

It is my firm belief that anyone who 'just' watches media files at a later date to when they have been streamed live, does not need a TV License. I have written on multiple occasions (every time I relocate) to TV Licensing themselves explaining these beliefs, and although they do not admit I am right, on each occasion they write back stating they will cease to continue demands for License payment. In my view, they would not do this unless they privately agreed that my views were correct. It is also my belief that the reason that they will never admit this is because of the vast amount of publicity this would cause, and the vast loss of income that would ensue when people around the country cancelled their licenses.

Having said all that, I also believe that the vast majority of people will still watch TV 'live' and therefore they still legally need to obtain and pay for their TV License.

Whether the actual need to have a TV License in the first place as a means to pay for the BBC is I think a different topic altogether, although I do feel personally that we should maybe look at how other countries survive without charging a License fee - people overseas are amazed at our antiquated ways!!

I hope I have explained my beliefs on this in a way that others can understand. I would ask when making comments about this that people refrain from saying things like calling me a criminal for my actions as has happened in other threads - this is libellous and not helpful in the slightest!

The Communications Act 2004 can be found at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/692/made.
The relevant piece for me is the following:
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.
As signed by Tessa Jowell!

The TV Licensing website is currently misleading people with factural inaccuracies. They are stating the following:
Video recorders and digital recorders like Sky+
You need a licence if you record TV as it's broadcast, whether that's on a conventional video recorder or digital box.
This is wrong. The Communications Act 2004 does 'not' mention this anywhere that I can see, and as such TV Licensing is not allowed to try and 'add' this into the law! If anyone can spot where I have missed this, then I would be grateful to have this pointed out to me.

I would like to apologise for the tiny pictures, it was the only way to get them under the 150k limit on picture filesizing.

TV Licensing 3.gif (62.67 KB, 426x599 - viewed 179 times.) TV Licensing 2.gif (54.68 KB, 516x604 - viewed 175 times.)
	Logged

CybertraxUK

Guest

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #1 Posted: 05 April 2011 at 01:22 AM »

TV Licensing 1.gif (142.98 KB, 663x290 - viewed 170 times.)
	Logged

JustStu

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 1040

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #2 Posted: 05 April 2011 at 07:25 AM »

Am I missing something here? Nowhere in those two letters can I see where they tell you you don't need a licence.

Quote

In the letter dated 2009, they confirm that a person only needs a TV License if they are 'watching' a television programme live, or close-to-live.

I can't see that. It mentions receiving, not watching. Your PVR is receiving the live broadcast. You need a licence in my opinion.

In fact they have been very clear in the first one by saying

Quote

"I can only advise you therefore that if you are receiving a television programme service, namely one which has been streamed live, or nearly live to your equipment, a licence is required"

So even though you aren't watching TV at the time it's broadcast, you are receiving the programme as it's broadcast in order to record it.

The reason they're not pursuing you is because you've stated you refuse them entry to you property. I assume this is because you don't want to get caught. Surely if you know you're on the right side of the law you would have no problem letting them in?
They probably haven't pursued it further because they assume, as they've told you you need a licence that you've been out and bought one.

That's my interpretation anyway.


	Logged

I told my girlfriend I had a job in a bowling alley. She said 'Tenpin?' I said, 'No, permanent.'

George27

Lowestoft Online Addict

Posts: 1489

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #3 Posted: 05 April 2011 at 08:05 AM »

I understood it that you need a licence to receive a live signal, whether or not it is being watched live. If you use your TV just to watch pre-recorded DVD's or tapes, then no licence is required.

With more streamed programs via the internet comming on-stream, I can foresee a time in the future when when the regulations are changed.


	Logged

ATHEISM IS A NON-PROPHET ORGANIZATION

cyclelowestoft.blogspot.com

CybertraxUK

Guest

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #4 Posted: 05 April 2011 at 11:21 AM »

Remember, it doesnt really matter what TV Licensing themselves say, although itcan be helpful. What 'is' important is the wording of the Communications Act 2004. This is the law that TV Licensing are bound to follow, it is the very law that states who does and doesnt need a license, and what type of license.

For example, another thing that TV Licensing 'forget' to mention is that if you repair TVs, you dont need a TV License! So if you repair TV sets at home, then your home does not need a license. This has actually been proven in court when TV Licensing took someone to court and he provided to the magistrates proof of his trade alongside the actual Communications Act; not only did he win the case but he was awarded compensation for his time being wasted.

It is hard to get your head around the fact that TV Licensing is not an official government business - they make it look very official and they deliberately do this in order to get the 'sheep' to do what they want. But once you accept that TV Licensing is a privately run business and does not always tell the truth, and you are allowed to question their practices, then questions start to pop into your head. It is not about breaking the law, it is about upholding the law. In particular, it is about making sure that one private company does not use the lack of knowledge of the law against you.


	Logged

malcolm

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 7526

I Love Lowestoft!

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #5 Posted: 05 April 2011 at 11:37 AM »

All this totally misses the moral issue. If nobody paid their tv license how would the BBC be funded? Everthing has to be paid for. We have quality television the best in the world with no ad s. So whats the problem in paying for it?


	Logged

Forever Yellow

Jamesw82

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 2992

Website

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #6 Posted: 05 April 2011 at 11:41 AM »

We may have no ads but we have our fair share of annoying repetitive trailers instead!

Why should some people be forced to pay for a service such as the BBC thats institutionally politically biased anyway.

It's an interesting point because it does need to be funded in some way.


	Logged

CybertraxUK

Guest

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #7 Posted: 05 April 2011 at 11:53 AM »

Ah, and that shows another lack of understanding of how the BBC works - not anyones fault as they rely on this.

Like many other television production companies, the BBC make a lot of money from selling on the TV programmes they produce to other channels. For example, around 14% of all Sky subscription charges are paid to the BBC to allow their channels to be shown on Sky. Another example, when Top Gear is shown on foreign channels, the BBC have been paid for this. A third example is that of merchandising. Back when they were hugely popular, the BBC made a lot of money in royalties for every soft toy or mug etc sold bearing the mark of the Teletubbies.

The BBC make a lot of money from selling programmes to other channels, much the same as all other production companies. This was shown when the government criticized the BBC last year over this issue, and have threatened to investigate fully the 'need' for a license fee in, I believe, 2018.

We are used to paying a license fee in this country, because it has been around so long. We have grown up with it, and so we are taught that this is normal. And TV Licensing rely on this. They rely on us paying money year in year out without ever questioning the legalities of it all. And like sheep, we follow the herd, dutifully doing so 'in the greater good'.

Well, I question 'their' morality in making us believe something that isn't true. If the law states that a person does not need a TV license, why should that person have to buy one 'for moral reasons'? It is like saying a person does not own a car, but they should buy a tax disc otherwise the cost of tax discs will go up for everyone else?!

By the by, images were scanned in using a scanner kindly donated by Annie and Martin through Waveney Freegle.


	Logged

malcolm

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 7526

I Love Lowestoft!

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #8 Posted: 05 April 2011 at 12:17 PM »

I dont agree with Dave. Yes they sell programmes. This income is used to make more.

The bit about not owning a car and still buying a license makes no sence as a comparison as you would be getting no bennefit from not owning the car. You are getting all the bennefits of television without paying.

It would be interesting to know what portion of the total income is selling programmes compared to income from license fee.


	Logged

Forever Yellow

nauticaljane

Super Member

Posts: 219

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #9 Posted: 05 April 2011 at 12:54 PM »

I believe you need a public entertainment licence to play very loud music in the street,as you do on occasions, outside the age concern.It just seems you are against paying up for any type of licence.Society has to have rules otherwise you get spongers getting for free, what others have infact, paid to subsidise.If everyone did that with the loopholes you imply it would spread to other things.The fact you haven't been fined is not fair on those who have.


	Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 All | Go Up

Admin options

Jump to: