TV Licence

[Paul C]

 

So who does fund the transmitters?

You haven't produced evidence it doesn't, plus when I have a complaint about the transmitter here in Llanidloes the number I find in the telephone book and the name given when it is answered is BBC!

 

They're funded from rent paid by the companies/broadcasters who pay to transmit their programmes from that transmitter, one of these is the BBC (so its indirectly funded via the licence fee) but there are of course the other commercial broadcasters too.

[Graham Davis]

So why do I have to phone the BBC in Cardiff to complain about the local transmitter, and why does it give the BBC Cardiff number on the emergency call out plate?

That to me says the transmitter is owned by the BBC.

[DaveP]

The transmitters are owned by a separate company - Arquiva - which was split off and privatised in the '90's.

 

AIUI, the TV licence fee is absorbed into the general taxation income and then passed down to the Ministry of Fun, which then gives most of it to the BBc under the Royal Charter and some to Channel 4. All the broadcasters pay Arquiva for space on the transmitter network (and presumably whoever operates the satellite network as well).

[Jerra]

VHF radios transmit, so incorrect use would cause problems. You can't cause problems for other TV users by operating your TV incorrectly.

 

They are not even remotely comparable...

They are exactly comparable as it is a license to operate the equipment. The interfering due to transmitting is just a possible side effect due to the equipment and I think is covered by the need to have gained some form of competency

 

The fact remains they both licenses to operate the equipment. A TV license is a license to operate a TV receiver not to receive BBC.just as a license for VHF is to operate the equipment not a particular channel or wave length (I think that is the correct term).

[Delta9]

 

So who does fund the transmitters?

You haven't produced evidence it doesn't, plus when I have a complaint about the transmitter here in Llanidloes the number I find in the telephone book and the name given when it is answered is BBC!

The non BBC channels pay to transmit their own programs. I produced three links about what the fee is spent on and none of them say other channels transmitters. You have produced exactly zero evidence to back up your claim...

They are exactly comparable as it is a license to operate the equipment. The interfering due to transmitting is just a possible side effect due to the equipment and I think is covered by the need to have gained some form of competency

 

The fact remains they both licenses to operate the equipment. A TV license is a license to operate a TV receiver not to receive BBC.just as a license for VHF is to operate the equipment not a particular channel or wave length (I think that is the correct term).

The vhf license is for transmitting, which requires knowledge. You can listen to vhf transmissions on a scanner without a license. They are not comparable in the slightest.

Edited August 9, 2014 by Delta9

[Guest]

Who pays for free view then or free sat for that matter?..

 

 

The TV fairy perhaps?..

[Ex- Member]

Yahoo gave me this.

 

 

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070303073748AAFaHjt

 

My dad was a radio ham, I do recall that when he had a complaint that his radio aerials interfered with a neighbours TV he was visited by someone from ofcom.

 

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/about/what-is-ofcom/

[Delta9]

Who pays for free view then or free sat for that matter?..

 

 

The TV fairy perhaps?..

Each channel (or group of channels) pays for their own transmissions. Like any other business they pay any costs involved in running their business.

Edited August 9, 2014 by Delta9

[nicknorman]

 

Must I be taxed for the mere privilege of owning an LCD panel? .

No, you don't require a licence to own a TV, you only require a licence to use it - to receive live TV broadcasts.

Edited August 9, 2014 by nicknorman

[Guest]

 

 

No, you don't require a licence to own a TV, you only require a licence to use it - to receive live TV broadcasts.

I am no expert, but fear that statement may be inaccurate. If I have a telly in my living room (for example), and the man knocks on my door, can i claim I don't use it hence need no licence?

Edited August 9, 2014 by Guest

[Delta9]

I am no expert, but fear that statement may be inaccurate. If I have a telly in my living room (for example), and the man knocks on my door, can i claim I don't use it hence need no licence?

Yes. You only need the license to receive live broadcasts, you can have a telly to use for other stuff like playstation or DVDs without a licence. You could also have no TV at all but still need a licence if you watch live broadcasts on your laptop or phone.

Edited August 9, 2014 by Delta9

[nicknorman]

I am no expert, but fear that statement may be inaccurate. If I have a telly in my living room (for example), and the man knocks on my door, can i claim I don't use it hence need no licence?

 

No, I am correct. I suggest you have a look at the TV licensing website, which clearly makes this point. If you have a tv in pride of place in your living room, connected to an aerial and tuned in, I think you would be struggling to convince someone that you never used it. But if for example it was tucked away in the loft and not plugged in to anything, you could easily make the case.

 

I know this from personal experience because many years ago I had a bit of a fit about how much time I was wasting watching rubbish on the tv over the summer when I should have been doing something more useful. I "decommissioned" the TV and put it away, and didn't renew my licence. I subsequently received the usual snotograms from the licensing people so I explained that the tv was out of use for the summer and I would get a licence when I put it back into use. This went on for a while and by then, it was autumn and I re commissioned the tv and bought a licence. They wrote to me informing me that the licence was being backdated to when the previous one expired and thus it would expire in about 8 months. I objected and whilst they Initially they didn't "buy" this point, when I pointed out that the law required me to have a licence only to receive broadcast TV, not just to own a set, they backed down.

[Guest]

Yes. You only need the license to receive live broadcasts, you can have a telly to use for other stuff like playstation or DVDs without a licence. You could also have no TV at all but still need a licence if you watch live broadcasts on your laptop or phone.

Yes I understand if the equipment was used purely as a monitor then it ceases to be a TV as such. But if it is connected to an antenna/dish it then surely becomes a TV set?

No, I am correct. I suggest you have a look at the TV licensing website, which clearly makes this point. If you have a tv in pride of place in your living room, connected to an aerial and tuned in, I think you would be struggling to convince someone that you never used it. But if for example it was tucked away in the loft and not plugged in to anything, you could easily make the case.

 

I know this from personal experience because many years ago I had a bit of a fit about how much time I was wasting watching rubbish on the tv over the summer when I should have been doing something more useful. I "decommissioned" the TV and put it away, and didn't renew my licence. I subsequently received the usual snotograms from the licensing people so I explained that the tv was out of use for the summer and I would get a licence when I put it back into use. This went on for a while and by then, it was autumn and I re commissioned the tv and bought a licence. They wrote to me informing me that the licence was being backdated to when the previous one expired and thus it would expire in about 8 months. I objected and whilst they Initially they didn't "buy" this point, when I pointed out that the law required me to have a licence only to receive broadcast TV, not just to own a set, they backed down.

Yes if you "decomission" it (preferably put a hammer through it) that is fine. Or use it as a monitor for a PC that is fine, as it has ceased to be a television receiver. Once you bung the aerial plug in it becomes a television receiver, or for short, a television. Equipped as such, and as you imply "I don't use it" would not wash.

Edited to add: we use a "monitor" (TV set minus aerial) on the boat to watch our DVD's and as far as I am concerned, we need no licence for same. If there was an aerial aboard, not even connected, we might have a battle on our hands?

Edited August 9, 2014 by Guest

[nicknorman]

Yes I understand if the equipment was used purely as a monitor then it ceases to be a TV as such. But if it is connected to an antenna/dish it then surely becomes a TV set?

 

Yes if you "decomission" it (preferably put a hammer through it) that is fine. Or use it as a monitor for a PC that is fine, as it has ceased to be a television receiver. Once you bung the aerial plug in it becomes a television receiver, or for short, a television. Equipped as such, and as you imply "I don't use it" would not wash.

Edited to add: we use a "monitor" (TV set minus aerial) on the boat to watch our DVD's and as far as I am concerned, we need no licence for same. If there was an aerial aboard, not even connected, we might have a battle on our hands?

All true but the fundamental point is that the licence is required to operate the set so as to receive broadcast tv, not to own the set. The argument then revolves around whether you can convince the authorities that you own the set but don't use it for its intended purpose. In theory if it is plugged into an aerial and tuned in but you never turn it on in "TV" mode, you don't need a licence. Convincing the authorities that you never use it in that mode would of course be quite hard.

[Guest]

All true but the fundamental point is that the licence is required to operate the set so as to receive broadcast tv, not to own the set. The argument then revolves around whether you can convince the authorities that you own the set but don't use it for its intended purpose. In theory if it is plugged into an aerial and tuned in but you never turn it on in "TV" mode, you don't need a licence. Convincing the authorities that you never use it in that mode would of course be quite hard.

Correct, people have tried it! I seem to remember that "intent to use" came into the prosecutions.

[Delta9]

Yes I understand if the equipment was used purely as a monitor then it ceases to be a TV as such. But if it is connected to an antenna/dish it then surely becomes a TV set?

 

If it is connected to an antenna and tuned in, then yes you need a license. When I unplug the antenna from my TV set I still refer to it as a TV and so do the rest of the English speaking world.

[Guest]

If it is connected to an antenna and tuned in, then yes you need a license. When I unplug the antenna from my TV set I still refer to it as a TV and so do the rest of the English speaking world.

I too would still call it a TV. But we are talking legalities here, and I suggest that in the eyes of the law, it could reasonably be described as a decomissioned TV (when used for other tasks), as has already been suggested.

Edited August 9, 2014 by Guest

[Jerra]

The vhf license is for transmitting, which requires knowledge. You can listen to vhf transmissions on a scanner without a license. They are not comparable in the slightest.

You can twist it any way you like both licenses are for operating the equipment in the way it was designed and I think if you look into the history certainly of the TV license it is for operating the equipment.

 

Both licenses are for operating the equipment nothing more nothing less, just because the powers that be have decided scanners don't need licensed does not alter the fact. You are trying to read something into the fact that one receives and one transmits and receives. It changes nothing you must have the license to operate each respective type of equipment.

[Delta9]

You can twist it any way you like both licenses are for operating the equipment in the way it was designed and I think if you look into the history certainly of the TV license it is for operating the equipment.

 

Both licenses are for operating the equipment nothing more nothing less, just because the powers that be have decided scanners don't need licensed does not alter the fact. You are trying to read something into the fact that one receives and one transmits and receives. It changes nothing you must have the license to operate each respective type of equipment.

OK

I too would still call it a TV. But we are talking legalities here, and I suggest that in the eyes of the law, it could reasonably be described as a decomissioned TV (when used for other tasks), as has already been suggested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_TV

[Guest]

OK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_TV

Well yes, I have seen the Smart TV concept before. Your point being?

[Graham Davis]

The non BBC channels pay to transmit their own programs. I produced three links about what the fee is spent on and none of them say other channels transmitters. You have produced exactly zero evidence to back up your claim...

 

 

But they don't use their own transmitters, do they? They use the same ones as the BBC.

My transmitter:

http://www.ukfree.tv/txdetail.php?a=SN947843

Notice all the NON BBC companies?

Edited August 9, 2014 by Graham Davis

[Delta9]

 

But they don't use their own transmitters, do they? They use the same ones as the BBC.

My transmitter:

http://www.ukfree.tv/txdetail.php?a=SN947843

Notice all the NON BBC companies?

The transmitters are owned by a private company. The BBC, ITV and the other channels pay the private company to transmit their programs.

Edited August 9, 2014 by Delta9

[andyscott]

All true but the fundamental point is that the licence is required to operate the set so as to receive broadcast tv, not to own the set. The argument then revolves around whether you can convince the authorities that you own the set but don't use it for its intended purpose. In theory if it is plugged into an aerial and tuned in but you never turn it on in "TV" mode, you don't need a licence. Convincing the authorities that you never use it in that mode would of course be quite hard.

 

Quite right, and therein lies the problem - explaining you aren't using your TV or that you've got rid of it is almost impossible. First there's the letters, then the inspectors, then the threats, it's like not paying the mafia your weekly protection money. While I, as a fairly young person won't be bullied by these cretins and have the time and energy to fight them off, I have a couple of elderly relatives that just gave in to the intimidation and paid up.

 

I don't trust any organisation that uses outright lies (TV detector vans, hand held detectors) to bully people into paying them money, it's obscene.

[Ex- Member]

 

 

No, you don't require a licence to own a TV, you only require a licence to use it - to receive live TV broadcasts.

 

To be accurate. The tv licence, licences the property/address where tv receiving equipment can be used.

 

I also thought this interesting. I think I've posted it before.

 

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=1487193

Edited August 10, 2014 by Julynian

[bassplayer]

I was wondering how the BBC fund their radio stations. We don't have to pay for a BBC radio licence so I presume it's paid for by those who pay for a TV licence. Interesting that the BBC still charge over £70 for a TV licence if you're blind....