TV Licence

[Kier]

For or against?

I am very much against, there is so much choice now that many (if not the majority) could happily live without the BBC's offerings. Making us pay for something we may not watch is wrong.

If you like the BBC and enjoy their shows, fair enough. But you should be willing to pay a proper subscription rather than expecting others to subsidise your viewing.

Also the way the BBC treat non-viewers is disgusting sending intimidating letters demanding payment and implying they have powers they do not (A TV licence "enforcement officer" is nothing more than a glorified salesman. And there is no such thing as a detector van!

 

[O L Leigh]

The licence is to have TV receiving equipment in your home. How the revenue the sale of these licences is spent is neither here nor there. The BBC themselves do not administer the licence fee, so you can't really blame them for it.

However, my own personal viewing preference is biased more towards Auntie and away from the commercial channels. I don't mind paying for it because I find myself watching the Beeb more anyway.

I could turn your question around and ask it another way. Given that I do not subscribe to any TV package and do not watch the commercial channels, how do I prevent the money I spend in the high street going to make inane papp TV programming that holds no interest to me?

O L Leigh

 

[Kier]

The licence is to have TV receiving equipment in your home. How the revenue the sale of these licences is spent is neither here nor there. The BBC themselves do not administer the licence fee, so you can't really blame them for it.

However, my own personal viewing preference is biased more towards Auntie and away from the commercial channels. I don't mind paying for it because I find myself watching the Beeb more anyway.

I could turn your question around and ask it another way. Given that I do not subscribe to any TV package and do not watch the commercial channels, how do I prevent the money I spend in the high street going to make inane papp TV programming that holds no interest to me?

O L Leigh

Incorrect. The BBC is responsible for collecting the licence (even though much of it is contracted out). You do not need a licence to have TV recieving equipment in your house, you need it to watch live TV (if you own a TV but only watch DVDs or play games through it you legally do not need a licence).

To answer your question, you can't and that is an interesting point!

 

[ainsworth74]

I don't have an issue with the TV license itself (as with O L Leigh I watch a lot of the Beeb's output and appreciate the lack of adverts during programmes) but I do have an issue with the way that it is pursued for payment. As a student, for example, every year I've recived a letter that stright of the bat threatens me with court should I fail to pay for a license (and doesn't really make it clear what situations you don't need one in). That I object to if they were to tone down the rehetoric over paying for the thing (perhaps one or two polite requests for payment (if applicable) before resorting to threats) I would have absolutely no issue with the TV licence.

 

[Oswyntail]

Almost all of what I watch - and listen to - is BBC output, and what I stray to other channels for is usually movies. There is nothing I find consistently worth bothering with elsewhere. The fee is cheap enough. As OL Leigh says, we pay for the other channels through the High Street anyway - why should they get any of the licence fee

 

[theblackwatch]

I tend to watch BBC mainly too (probably in the region of 75-80% of what I watch), and am quite happy to pay the licence fee, and am glad I don't have to put up with lots of adverts.

I also agree with Ainsworth74 regarding the the way people are chased - a friend of mine doesn't have a TV at all and from what he's told me, he is almost harrassed with regard to him not having a TV licence.

 

[O L Leigh]

Incorrect. The BBC is responsible for collecting the licence (even though much of it is contracted out).

OK, so my information is a few years out of date. You'll have to forgive me that because I am very old and, therefore, quite stupid.

However, the principle I was trying to point towards is still correct. Yes the BBC is responsible for collecting the licence fee, but that is only because they are compelled by law to do so.

You do not need a licence to have TV recieving equipment in your house, you need it to watch live TV (if you own a TV but only watch DVDs or play games through it you legally do not need a licence).

Again, (almost) strictly true, but good luck trying to prove that. The need for a licence is decided on the ability to watch or record TV as it's being broadcast.

You don't even need to have an aerial on your roof or any other obvious means of connection to a broadcast TV service in order to need a licence. If you have a computer with a broadband connection you have the means to watch or record TV as it is being broadcast. I know this is the case because I regularly use the iPlayer.

To answer your question, you can't and that is an interesting point!

Isn't it...?

The problem these days is that you can't separate out the activities of the companies you do business with. I guess it has always been the case that a proportion of revenue has been spent on advertising, but these days it reaches deeper into our everyday lives in ways that we may not even be completely aware of. But how do you stop it?

I also agree with Ainsworth74 regarding the the way people are chased - a friend of mine doesn't have a TV at all and from what he's told me, he is almost harrassed with regard to him not having a TV licence.

The problem, as I've hinted above, is that not having a TV doesn't mean that you can't watch or record TV programming as it is being broadcast. If you have a smartphone with the appropriate service or a computer on a broadband connection then you can indeed watch or record TV as it is being broadcast. Therefore you will still need a licence.

However, I do broadly agree with your point about the pursuit of licence fees, but only up to a point. I'm currently in temporary accommodation while my house is being renovated, so I transferred the TV licence before I moved. However, just yesterday when I visited the house I picked up a letter from TV Licencing addressed to "The Occupier". The gist of it was that I needed a licence or I would face a £1000 fine. OK, so the letter went on to explain that the way to avoid the fine was to get a licence sorted, so in that respect it was quite clear. It explained what I needed to do and what the consequences could be if I failed to comply. So I phoned TV Licencing up and spoke to a very nice young lady and explained that the address was currently unoccupied and she updated the records accordingly without any problems.

Now maybe my situation is slightly more clear-cut than others, but I had no problems whatsoever. I was told I could ignore any further letters I receive and would just need to let them know when I move back in. However, given the circumstances under which a licence is required (even if that facility is not taken advantage of) I can see why they might be reluctant to simply let the matter drop if told that there is no TV at a certain premises.

 

[Kier]

OK, so my information is a few years out of date. You'll have to forgive me that because I am very old and, therefore, quite stupid.

However, the principle I was trying to point towards is still correct. Yes the BBC is responsible for collecting the licence fee, but that is only because they are compelled by law to do so.

Not stupid at all, the BBC do not want to be associated with collecting it, hence they use the brand name "TV Licensing" which many people incorrectly think of as a separate organisation.

They are compelled by law to collect it but they are not compelled to threaten and harrass non viewers (over a million households).

Again, (almost) strictly true, but good luck trying to prove that. The need for a licence is decided on the ability to watch or record TV as it's being broadcast.

You don't even need to have an aerial on your roof or any other obvious means of connection to a broadcast TV service in order to need a licence. If you have a computer with a broadband connection you have the means to watch or record TV as it is being broadcast. I know this is the case because I regularly use the iPlayer.

Indeed it would be very difficult to prove but short of you confessing it is impossible to prove you do and therefore convict you. As I said enforcement officers are nothing more than salesman with no powers to enter and you are under no obligation whatsoever to speak to them or answer their questions. Without your cooperation there is nothing they can do.

Isn't it...?

The problem these days is that you can't separate out the activities of the companies you do business with. I guess it has always been the case that a proportion of revenue has been spent on advertising, but these days it reaches deeper into our everyday lives in ways that we may not even be completely aware of. But how do you stop it?

I guess we can't. That is the best counter argument I have ever heard though.

 

[O L Leigh]

Indeed it would be very difficult to prove but short of you confessing it is impossible to prove you do and therefore convict you. As I said enforcement officers are nothing more than salesman with no powers to enter and you are under no obligation whatsoever to speak to them or answer their questions. Without your cooperation there is nothing they can do.

True. But having done a not dissimilar job in the past, the best defence is always cooperation.

I did amend my post after you'd replied to address the point of enforcement. One of the phrases that the letter I received from TV Licencing was "Visit Authorised". To my mind that is entirely fine. If you have no means of watching or recording TV as it is being broadcast the best thing you can do is to invite the nice man into your home, make him a cup of tea and show him around. If you have no facilities to watch or record TV as it is being broadcast, show him and he will go away.

If you refuse to cooperate he will simply assume that you have something to hide and escalate the enforcement process to the next level. Who does this really help? You...? Let me disabuse you of any false pretence you might have in this regard. It is up to you to prove non-liability. If you fail to do so you will continue to be liable for any enforcement action they choose to take. For the sake of arranging for the nice man to come around and have a look this seems like a needlessly adversarial approach and one which will only harm yourself.

O L Leigh

 

[GB]

Once all the analogue signals get turned off and switches to all digital there is no reason (other than a loss of revenue to the beeb) they can't make the service a subscription service....of course they wont do that though.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Incorrect. The BBC is responsible for collecting the licence (even though much of it is contracted out).

They are required by law to collect the licence fee.

Also the way the BBC treat non-viewers is disgusting sending intimidating letters demanding payment

Again, the BBC do not send letters to any non-viewers.

and implying they have powers they do not (A TV licence "enforcement officer" is nothing more than a glorified salesman.

They have the power to take statements, and under PACE are required to caution you before doing so. They can also obtain search warrants.

And there is no such thing as a detector van!

Are you sure about that?

 

[EM2]

For me, it's yes.
I thoroughly dislike commercial radio, so will always listen to Radio 2 or 6 Music (for music) and 5Live (for news and sport). I also thoroughly dislike Murdoch and News International so avoid their output as much as I am able, so I rely on the BBC for football highlights.
Their website is one of the best for news and information and keeps me informed and entertained for *hours* on nights!

 

[hairyhandedfool]

To clear a few things up.

TV Licenses are for property, not people.

A TV license is needed if live TV broadcasts are viewed or recorded from equipment that is plugged into the mains (PC, TV, Sky box, DVD recorder, etc).

If live TV broadcasts are viewed or recorded from equipment that is running on internal batteries (laptop, mobile phone, etc) a TV license is required for the property that the equipment is registered to.

If you have equipment that can view or record live TV broadcasts, but is not used for that, you do not need a TV license, however the licensing authourity advises that you sign a declaration that you are not watching or recording live TV broadcasts.

You do not need a TV license to listen to radio broadcasts, even if it is through TV viewing or recording equipment.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk

 

[causton]

Again, the BBC do not send letters to any non-viewers.

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/

What's this site full of pictures of then?

Granted, I think they're taking the mick a little bit as I doubt they've notified them that they are NOT watching TV using the website they advertise, but still, how many letters?!?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

That is not a BBC or TV Licensing website and none of the letters claim to be from the BBC.

 

[90019]

You don't even need to have an aerial on your roof or any other obvious means of connection to a broadcast TV service in order to need a licence. If you have a computer with a broadband connection you have the means to watch or record TV as it is being broadcast. I know this is the case because I regularly use the iPlayer.

Using iPlayer only requires a licence if you stream live programs, watching them afterwards does not require one.
Even if you do watch live stuff on iPlayer, it's not something they can prove easily.

Granted, I think they're taking the mick a little bit as I doubt they've notified them that they are NOT watching TV using the website they advertise, but still, how many letters?!?

A little bit?

Is it really that hard to fill out one form to say you don't require a licence?
Yes, the letters can be rather nasty, and I do disagree with how some of them are written, but he's just being deliberately obtuse.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/

What's this site full of pictures of then?

It's good if you read the sources that you post. None of those letters come from the BBC, claim to be from the BBC, and as far as I can see none of them even mention the BBC!

 

[Hydro]

And there is no such thing as a detector van!

I've always wondered how a "detector van" works, if they do exist. How can you detect that an aerial is receiving? An aerial is completely passive. An antenna or transmitter could be detected, but not an aerial.

 

[Kier]

It's good if you read the sources that you post. None of those letters come from the BBC, claim to be from the BBC, and as far as I can see none of them even mention the BBC!

TV Licencing is the BBC, it is just a trading name used by the BBC. It is not a separate authority or organisation.

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/TVL-BBC hiding of identities.htm

Part 2 of that page explains it, The BBC do not want to associated with the abhorrent letters and threats they mail out daily so have created the trading name to hide and misrepresent who the letters are from.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've always wondered how a "detector van" works, if they do exist. How can you detect that an aerial is receiving? An aerial is completely passive. An antenna or transmitter could be detected, but not an aerial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NmdUcmLFkw

It was a deterrent, nothing more. No-one has ever been convicted of evasion using evidence from a van.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I bet you'd all complain if they didn't send out warnings and the first you new about it was a summons to Court. They can't win!

I suggest people heed O L Leigh's advice - that's if you want to go down the mature and sensible route.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've always wondered how a "detector van" works, if they do exist. How can you detect that an aerial is receiving? An aerial is completely passive. An antenna or transmitter could be detected, but not an aerial.

Apparently magnetic fields or something like that. No idea how it all works, but they have handheld thingamajigs as well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No-one has ever been convicted of evasion using evidence from a van.

Not entirely correct. Evidence from a detector van would probably not be admissible in court, but it would certainly help them pinpoint householders to take to court through other conventional methods. So whilst they would not be convicted on the evidence from the van, they would probably not be brought to court without it either.

 

[table38]

Many years ago, I bought a PVR from Amazon but had it delivered to work for convenience.

We then received an increasingly rabid series of letters from TV Licensing threatening this and that, which we happily ignored.

Maybe a PVR doesn't generate enough EMF for their "detector" vans to detect

 

[Wyvern]

Maybe a PVR doesn't generate enough EMF for their "detector" vans to detect

It used to be said that the van detected stray frequencies from the line output circuitry, which a PVR wouldn't have.

I imagine it would be more difficult with modern television circuitry.

However retailers supposedly provide returns on the tunable equipment they sell - TVs PVRs and VCRs. Freeview and satellite boxes probably.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

TV Licencing is the BBC, it is just a trading name used by the BBC. It is not a separate authority or organisation.

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/TVL-BBC hiding of identities.htm

Part 2 of that page explains it, The BBC do not want to associated with the abhorrent letters and threats they mail out daily so have created the trading name to hide and misrepresent who the letters are from....

The TV Licensing website tells everyone who they are if they care to look, took me 30 seconds to find it on their own website.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/who-we-are-AB4/

The BBC does not send out any threatening letters about TV licences.

 

[EM2]

However retailers supposedly provide returns on the tunable equipment they sell - TVs PVRs and VCRs. Freeview and satellite boxes probably.

When I worked at Asda for a Christmas job about ten years ago, we had to get the customer fill in a form every time we sold a TV or VCR, and they were sent off to TV Licensing. No form, no sale.

 

[Mojo]

The TV Licensing website tells everyone who they are if they care to look, took me 30 seconds to find it on their own website.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/who-we-are-AB4/

Which says 'TV Licensing' is the BBC. Or at least that's how I read it.

 

[12CSVT]

I know they're not quite as bad as this but the BBC / TV Licensing's reputation for sending intimidating letters to non-payers is far from new. This 'Not The Nine O Clock News' sketch is form the early 1980s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UebJ4IWXT84

 

[GB]

Which says 'TV Licensing' is the BBC. Or at least that's how I read it.

That's how it reads to me and it does say they take over all responsibility.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Which says 'TV Licensing' is the BBC. Or at least that's how I read it.

And a quote from that page:

Capita Business Services Ltd TV Licensing administration and enforcement.

I think it's safe to say they are contracted to run the TV Licensing scheme!

 

[Kier]

Capita do send the letters out, yes. But they are just acting on the BBC's behalf who approve all of the content and instruct them how to act.

And TV Licensing is a just a brand name of the BBC so as the letters are from TV Licensing, they are from the BBC.

I have no doubt whatsoever if another organisation treated people in such a disgraceful manner, Watchdog would be all over it. Or maybe even Panorama.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Capita do send the letters out, yes. But they are just acting on the BBC's behalf who approve all of the content and instruct them how to act.

Really? I doubt that. Do you have any evidence to back that up?