Do the dreaded TV vans still work ?

[Simon]

considering most students live in 3+ bedroom houses I can't see that it is that expensive, do you complain about having to pay for the cinema ? I bet you spend more on cinema tickets than TV. Nothing's for free mate, wait till you really have to work and pay for your keep !

[.o:0|O|0:o.]

as I said before you need a license if you are "viewing or recording transmissions live" simple dose not matter what the hec you use, yes to use a mobile phone to watch TV you need a license !

In my previous post I was talking about an old loop-hole. Did I say you do not need a licence to receive transmissions??

The full legislation can be found here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/part/4

.o:0|O|0:o.

[8086]

as I said before you need a license if you are "viewing or recording transmissions live" simple dose not matter what the hec you use, yes to use a mobile phone to watch TV you need a license !

Interesting point, if students have a parent that pays for a license at their home address, they don't need an additional license for watching on 'portable devices'

[Simon]

if the uni student is registered to an address other than their parents then i would guess that it's their problem, same as they have to pay their own electric and gas

[LumpyGravy]

considering most students live in 3+ bedroom houses I can't see that it is that expensive, do you complain about having to pay for the cinema ? I bet you spend more on cinema tickets than TV. Nothing's for free mate, wait till you really have to work and pay for your keep !

Most students live in halls for at least one year. If the door has a lock  then it is classed as a seperate residence and therefore requires a license. As a student, £145 was not a trivial amount of money.

Aside from anything else, when you go to the cinema you contract with the cinema willingly as two private entities receiving and providing a service. A TV license is enforced by statute, under threat of imprisonment. It is a license for operating a particular arrangement of electronic components, whether you receive unencrypted information pumped into your home or not. Whether you have a private subscription or not. Whether you want the services of the BBC and the other beneficiaries or not. It's an absurdity and so is your analogy. There are plenty of ways television could be provided ostensibly "for free", it is just that the government actively prevents it.

[Simon]

well I'm happy not watching any TV so can't see why i should put a penny into it. most uni towns have plenty of private lettings that are cheaper than the halls, so make your choice

[LumpyGravy]

Well, you are one in 60 million. Many people want to watch TV but are unhappy with being forced to pay for an idiotic, draconian 'license' on the say so of the government. I am curious as to why you are, apparently, defending it?

[Simon]

well do you complain about paying for sky or virgin ? ok I agree that with private TV you should have the option of opting out of the BBC channels but if you want it you pay for it, I certainly don't want to see it paid for with my taxes thank you.

[LumpyGravy]

well do you complain about paying for sky or virgin ? ok I agree that with private TV you should have the option of opting out of the BBC channels but if you want it you pay for it

The license fee isn't just used to pay for the BBC. Some goes to Channel 4, some maintains the terrestrial infrastructure, some goes elsewhere. It is a license to operate a television receiver regardless of what you use it for, and that is absurd.

Sky and Virgin is completely different. It is a voluntary agreement between two entities. The license is the government waving its fist and saying "pay us, or else", just like the mafia. No license, no virgin or sky.

I certainly don't want to see it paid for with my taxes thank you.

I didn't suggest any such thing.

[JohnS_AZ]

I have to say being in the US that this topic has been a little hard for me to comprehend. Then it dawned on me. They can call it what they want but it really isn't a license in the strict definition of the word. It's a recurring tax on television sets.

The thing I find interesting (and amusing) is that you guys have this big licensing system, the BBC, deep government involvement in the medium, and you complain that 90% of the programming is crap.

Here TV reception is totally free and un-monitored. The government (for the most part) is completely out of the loop, and we complain that 90% of the programming is crap.

Sounds a lot like a lose-lose situation. 

[Zero999]

Well the Americans make some great TV and some UK TV is also good and lots of it is made by the BBC.

I've never been to the US and watched TV there for real but my parents went there in the 70s and said the amount of good content was probably the same but split between many more channels, packed with adverts which made the viewing experience poorer.

Yes the TV licence is a tax. It goes back to what I was saying before about public service TV and the funding model.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=1586.msg21724#msg21724

If we decided to get rid of the public service broadcasters such as the BBC, certain niches such education and content for the deaf would disappear as they're not profitable. The government could try to force commercial broadcasters such as ITV to provide them but they probably wouldn't do such as good job and they'd have less money for other content. Don't forget that commercial TV isn't really free but is indirectly paid for in the cost of goods and services. There's a limited pool of money companies are willing to spend on advertising and whilst this would undoubtedly increase if the BBC folded, it arguably wouldn't be enough to fill the void created by the removal of the licence fee so the quality and quantity of content may fall.

Of course this is all speculative, no one really knows what would happen. We can look at other countries without a licence fee but each country has its own unique culture so it can't be used to predict what would happen in the UK.

People criticise the BBC for being biased but they also say the same is true for CNN, as I was saying before don't forget that commercial broadcasters also have to get a licence from the government.

[Simon]

that's why I go for the win win situation: not receive at all.

lumpygravy: I have a number of TV's in my home and do not pay a license. I am not breaking the law because as the letters state I have to pay if I receive/watch or record a live transmission and I do not. So it is not a tax on TV sets. I usually rip the tuner out of the sets for good measure.

I would agree that you should be able to not pay the license if you get virgin/sky and choose not to have BBC, as i said earlier due to the fact that the BBC is as old as the use of TV's historically the BBC is omnipresent and having a TV=watching BBC. You'd have to speak to davy cammy on that one

[Zero999]

I didn't know that Channel 4 got some of the licence fee but it makes sense as they're a government run channel. Some have also argued that ITV should get a share of the licence fee but others think it would be better if they remained totally independent. Some have also argued for reducing the licence fee but allowing some advertising on the BBC or at least sponsoring certain programs but others thing it would be better if the BBC remain free of commercial pressure and that one of the benefits of the licence is advert free TV.

I think that having adverts on the BBC or ITV getting licence fee money are both bad ideas. I think if the government wants more licence fee money to TV with adverts they can put more into Channel 4.

In my opinion, public broadcasting is a good idea and a TV licence fee is a fair enough way of funding it.

[.o:0|O|0:o.]

In principle, if you think the BBC is not good value for your money you can choose not to renew the license the following year. It does not appeal to all demographics. Unfortunately, there is a sytem set up to dissuade you from ever taking that step (not having a license), supported by legislation.

If you are unlikely to give up the licence, then the BBC are unlikely to have the strongest incentive to provide good efficient value for money.

The technology exists to exclude unlicensed receivers from receiving the BBC, especially with the switch to digital. It is a matter of implementing it. However, for the BBC this would amount to waiving the system that pressures people to pay them huge salaries, and with falling subscribers they would return to being a lean news broadcaster.

Perhaps, the BBC World Service (radio) could be supported by a small tax in its present format with regular local/national news bulletins and also with programming of wider interest, with the fee being strictly for BBC TV and not other channels. The world service would be unlocked for all on digital TV.

This would keep the highly valued public service and allow the BBC to continue its profit making but on fairer grounds.

.o:0|O|0:o.

[.o:0|O|0:o.]

I usually rip the tuner out of the sets for good measure.

While this seems like a reasonable measure if you know what you are doing, what is the legislation regarding modifying appliances in the UK?

Clearly the TV warranty would be voided, but wouldn't this also compromise things like insurance on your property (in case the TV caught fire or something).

If I am not mistaken, appliances that are connected to the mains have to meet certain requirement regarding harmonics in the grid. I know this doesn't really apply when extracting a receiver, but I wonder if there is legislation in place stating that you have to have permission in order to add custom equipment to the grid that might cause some form of noise, disruption or hazard.

An easier analogy would be the case of BT telephone lines were you are not supposed to tamper with the wiring without permission and you are not supposed to connect non-approved equipment.

.o:0|O|0:o.

[Simon]

well what about all your home made stuff you may connect to the socket as a hobbiest ? all my TV's are old and donated so I have no warranty issue and the receiver is usually a separate board in a shielded box, sometimes you can unplug it often it is soldered down and I have to get under it with wire cutters I did it to a TV PC card that I have too. It would not cause the TV to catch fire and I keep TV's off when not in use, have no idea of the insurance though but put it this way: I built my own PC now they don't know what I might put into it.

[.o:0|O|0:o.]

well what about all your home made stuff you may connect to the socket as a hobbiest ? all my TV's are old and donated so I have no warranty issue and the receiver is usually a separate board in a shielded box, sometimes you can unplug it often it is soldered down and I have to get under it with wire cutters I did it to a TV PC card that I have too. It would not cause the TV to catch fire and I keep TV's off when not in use, have no idea of the insurance though but put it this way: I built my own PC now they don't know what I might put into it.

I would be the first one to ignore silly legislation, but the question applies here a little more than in your examples. In the event that you were required to defend yourself in a court by using the fact that you have no receiver having removed it yourself, you might then find yourself confronted by unexpected legislation relating to other areas of the law.

While removing the receiver completely removes the licence issue completely, and it is a good solution in principle, how would you go about proving to an inspector that your TV has no receiver. Unless they look inside and are qualified, all they will see is a TV and issue you with a fine or a summons.

.o:0|O|0:o.

[dds]

TV reception licensing sounds so strange to me, also as a U.S. citizen.

Indeed it's strange..I've always thought that TV license was  obligatory only in socialism/communism dictatorship
where none bothered to see that communism propaganda crap on TV!

[Simon]

well what about all your home made stuff you may connect to the socket as a hobbiest ? all my TV's are old and donated so I have no warranty issue and the receiver is usually a separate board in a shielded box, sometimes you can unplug it often it is soldered down and I have to get under it with wire cutters I did it to a TV PC card that I have too. It would not cause the TV to catch fire and I keep TV's off when not in use, have no idea of the insurance though but put it this way: I built my own PC now they don't know what I might put into it.

I would be the first one to ignore silly legislation, but the question applies here a little more than in your examples. In the event that you were required to defend yourself in a court by using the fact that you have no receiver having removed it yourself, you might then find yourself confronted by unexpected legislation relating to other areas of the law.

While removing the receiver completely removes the licence issue completely, and it is a good solution in principle, how would you go about proving to an inspector that your TV has no receiver. Unless they look inside and are qualified, all they will see is a TV and issue you with a fine or a summons.

.o:0|O|0:o.


.o:0|O|0:o.

I wouldn't bother to tell them unless necessary about the removal of the receiver, as others have noted the inspector actually has very little power and unless he has a warrant to search your property can be told to go and get a life

[Simon]

ok I'm in Italy for a few days, the iplayer radio is available but not iplayer TV