TV Licensing

[jon0844]

Depends on the PVR. A Humax box or something might keep your recordings safe forever (or until the HDD fails if you can't export the files) but Sky can delete or expire recordings, and if you unsubscribe then the recordings can no longer be viewed.

 

[LateThanNever]

TV Licensing announce (by e-mail) they take 4 to 8 days to respond to e-mails, so that's another 4 to 8 days they're not getting (re)paid for. When/if I get their apology/explanation I shall hang it next to the VAT Inspector's similar missive in my loo.

Reminds me of a Frenchman of my acquaintance who had a sign saying 'Place Générale de Gaulle' hanging in his loo! Time to ponder...
I've not had a telly for years and the TV Licensing have been threatening me ever since. It goes on and on. I'm obstreperous because when I was living away for months and had let the licence lapse they knocked up my next door neighbour, who happened to be a magistrate at the time, as to why I hadn't got a licence! I've refused to respond to their threats since! In the intervening period w'eve discovered that there is not much telly that is worth watching and so I still don't have a licence and watch a couple of programmes a week on Iplayer.. Otherwise it's the radio...

 

[jon0844]

If you don't need a licence, just ignore every letter and tell them to sod off when they call. They need a warrant to get in and won't get one.

I told one to bugger off when I already had a licence but had just moved in. They just sent people out to knock on every door without even checking records.

But despite that, I don't propose to get rid of the fee.

 

[Busaholic]

If you don't need a licence, just ignore every letter and tell them to sod off when they call. They need a warrant to get in and won't get one.

I told one to bugger off when I already had a licence but had just moved in. They just sent people out to knock on every door without even checking records.

But despite that, I don't propose to get rid of the fee.

Despite my travails, I'm in favour of the licence fee.

 

[Butts]

Who remembers BBC TV on Saturdays and the excitement that the "Grandstand" programme engendered in the early afternoon when sport held sway.

What does BBC1 now feel that it can offer to its Saturday sports audience? Last Saturday, the early afternoon schedule was:-
1300-1400...Bargain Hunt (The BBC1 flagship programme)
1400-1500...Escape to The Country
1500-1600...Homes Under The Hammer

Happy days...enjoy...

Yes, I remember it well. Frank Bough, David Coleman and Des Lynham to name but a few of the esteemed presenters.

"BBC - You make it what it is" - remember that one ?

I also recollect World of Sport with Dickie Davies on ITV, screened at the same time.

 

[jon0844]

The BBC probably can't just bid whatever it likes for the rights to show certain things that are now snapped up by Sky, BT, Virgin etc for any cost - as securing said rights are so vital to sell its platform.

BT has paid a fortune for Champions League, to get people to sign up to its channels and get BT Broadband - for example.

 

[Mojo]

But I digress, the TV licence is generally a good thing. I see them as a counterweight to the dross put out by other channels reliant on advertising (lowest common denominator).

Further to this, there is also the danger of the advertisers trying to use their clout, as effectively the funders of television channels, to affect the output that gets to the end viewers.

In recent times we have seen football club sponsors pulling out (or threatening to) over the deal to sign Ched Evans, six major companies withdrawing ads from Facebook because it contains BNP groups/pages and a number of companies having a review over advertising in the Sun because of phone hacking.

Whilst the above three examples may be seen by many as A Good Thing, on the other hand could it be argued as trying to shut down certain views. See it from the other side and is there the possibility of companies threaten to withdraw advertising because they object to a soap containing two men kissing, or a documentary on climate change? Or even a programme which could be detrimental to the interests of businesses, for example Marks & Spencer has stopped advertising in three titles owned by Associated Newspapers over what it perceives as negative coverage?

 

[SS4]

Depends on the PVR. A Humax box or something might keep your recordings safe forever (or until the HDD fails if you can't export the files) but Sky can delete or expire recordings, and if you unsubscribe then the recordings can no longer be viewed.

I did not know that about the Sky box, I guess that is why you can't export them to usb easily? My PVR is a Humax and pretty much assumed all PVRs could keep files indefinitely. Granted HD files are encrypted even on Humax

 

[infobleep]

Depends on the PVR. A Humax box or something might keep your recordings safe forever (or until the HDD fails if you can't export the files) but Sky can delete or expire recordings, and if you unsubscribe then the recordings can no longer be viewed.

Just another reason to add to the list of why I have a motorised satellite dish and not Sky. I wasn't aware you had to remain subscribed to keep watching them but assumed they would apply DRM as standard.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Interestingly if you watch live TV on a portable device which is plugged into the mains, you need to have a TV licence for the location you are at. If you watch it using batteries, you don't.

I did once consider asking the TV licencing people how I would go about applying for a licence to watch live TV on the 18.15 week day Waterloo to Portsmouth service, assuming I needed one. I decided not to ask the question in the end. I did however get them to clarify the position with mains electricity.

In my question I didn't ask I would have either:
(1) Used my mobile phone as a wifi hotspot, and used my laptop to connect to the live TV. My laptop would be plugged into the train power sockets of course, as would my mobile but that bit isn't so important.

(2) Connect directly to my Slingbox at home, using a mobile phone app. The Slingbox app allows me to connect to a Slingbox device so I can watch my satellite TV remotely. Again I would be plugged into the mains on the train.

I don't know if train plug sockets classed as mains electricity though. Does anyone know if they are?

If they were classed as mains electricity I imagine detecting someone watching TV illegally in this way might be difficult.

Either way it highlights how legislation has not caught up with technology.

 

[PermitToTravel]

IMO:

They're not connected to the electrical main, so I'd say no. In the case of the Slingbox the TV-receiving equipment is at your house so that's what should be licensed.

 

[infobleep]

IMO:

They're not connected to the electrical main, so I'd say no. In the case of the Slingbox the TV-receiving equipment is at your house so that's what should be licensed.

So what is train electricity classed as? It's not battery powered.

You are right about the Slingbox so I'd amend my example to watching live TV directly on my mobile / laptop.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . I don't know if train plug sockets classed as mains electricity though. Does anyone know if they are?

If they were classed as mains electricity I imagine detecting someone watching TV illegally in this way might be difficult.

Either way it highlights how legislation has not caught up with technology.

You're right that, in general, legislation lags behind custom and practice, but there's often more trouble than help from hasty drafting which is a quick respose to a specific instance, and doesn't deal with the bigger issue (I'm reminded of the several sections of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act which were drafted to get rid of long-term camper Brian Haw on Westminster Square, but didn't. It only referred to people coming to "start" in the area, failing to refer to Haw who had been there all along.) I'm not sure what legislation you think is in need of revision but I think I can answer some of your questions.

Train power sockets (they are NOT 'plug sockets' - no such thing exists) are not defined in terms of TV licensing, but that definition is immaterial.

TV Licences are related to a person and to an address, thereby creating 'a household' which authorises the licenceholder at that address and other people at that address.

The 'reception' equipment in your scenario will be at an address, an address which, if Licensed by you (or someone in your household), will also authorise viewing on portable equipment.

Portable equipment is defined as 'powered by internal batteries anywhere' which does not exclude equipment which may be both battery-powered or mains-powered.

If there is a licence currently valid for the address at which the 'receiving equipment' is located, then viewing on the remote laptop will be authorised, irregardless of the power used at any moment in time.

If there is not a licence currently valid for the address at which the 'receiving equipment' is located, then viewing on the remote laptop will not be authorised.

 

[PermitToTravel]

So what is train electricity classed as? It's not battery powered.

Surely the electricity mains are the domestic power distribution network? Electricity from a train, whether converted from the traction supply or generated onboard from diesel or steam, is at mains voltage but has not come from the mains

 

[GaryMcEwan]

I don't pay the TV Licence as I'm at work 10/11 hours a day and rarely watch TV when I get in. When I do it's always catch up anyway, but it was cheaper to take Virgin TV along with my Broadband and Phone...

 

[Hadders]

I agree that the TV license is a good thing. While people moan about it those very same people need to be careful what they wish for.

Society would be a poorer place if the BBC didn't exist. At £145 it's a bargain really when you consider what you get for it.

One watch out is that watching catch-up TV without a license is probably unsustainable in the long term. Something will need to be done to prevent 'revenue extraction' so I expect to see a license required to view online content.

 

[infobleep]

You're right that, in general, legislation lags behind custom and practice, but there's often more trouble than help from hasty drafting which is a quick respose to a specific instance, and doesn't deal with the bigger issue (I'm reminded of the several sections of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act which were drafted to get rid of long-term camper Brian Haw on Westminster Square, but didn't. It only referred to people coming to "start" in the area, failing to refer to Haw who had been there all along.) I'm not sure what legislation you think is in need of revision but I think I can answer some of your questions.

Train power sockets (they are NOT 'plug sockets' - no such thing exists) are not defined in terms of TV licensing, but that definition is immaterial.

TV Licences are related to a person and to an address, thereby creating 'a household' which authorises the licenceholder at that address and other people at that address.

The 'reception' equipment in your scenario will be at an address, an address which, if Licensed by you (or someone in your household), will also authorise viewing on portable equipment.

Portable equipment is defined as 'powered by internal batteries anywhere' which does not exclude equipment which may be both battery-powered or mains-powered.

If there is a licence currently valid for the address at which the 'receiving equipment' is located, then viewing on the remote laptop will be authorised, irregardless of the power used at any moment in time.

If there is not a licence currently valid for the address at which the 'receiving equipment' is located, then viewing on the remote laptop will not be authorised.

From memory I was told by TV licensing customer services that if I plugged my laptop into the mains I would need licence at the address I was using it but I wouldn't if it was run off batteries.

I do think it's odd that catchup TV isn't included as part of the license. I know people who don't pay but use catch up. I do pay because I like some of the stuff the BBC does. The rest I just ignore.

 

[jon0844]

At the end of the day, I doubt anyone would take action against someone who has a licence, but then watches iPlayer on a tablet that is currently plugged in.

You'd probably be able to argue that the tablet is still being powered by a battery, even if it's being topped up at the same time. It would come down to the circuitry and how far lawyers would be prepared to argue semantics - and for as long as they were being paid for by, frankly, idiots.

I do also think that in due course, something will have to be done about on demand TV watching. If people stop watching live TV and think they can just watch via catch up type services, without paying, then who will be paying for the BBC to produce content for them to watch for free?

This all comes down to the same thinking about paying to read content in newspapers and magazines. We all want to read for free, but those journalists have to get paid. And if you want to read impartial reviews, chances are it's not a good idea to read said reviews in a publication or website that relies almost solely on advertising revenue.

I've worked in print and digital publishing and advertisers have always tried to influence editorial content. In the past you could tell them to sod off as you got paid from the 'newsstand' sales and advertising was profit. You could therefore afford to let one advertiser go and get someone else to fill the page, as they had no control over you.

Now advertising is life or death - and agencies know this. So they can threaten to pull big campaigns, or go with rivals, or simply drill down the rates to nothing as you go begging to them, and influence what you write about.

As someone once told me, with companies like Unilever spending so much on advertising, you just try and find articles that expose any of their businesses doing wrong. It would be a very interesting publishing meeting to decide whether to hold back or go 'all in'. I'd suspect the story would only get published if it was so big that any advertising lost wouldn't be an issue (company concerned is going under for example).

It's no doubt a problem for some commercial TV stations too, although I suspect many don't have a problem because they've ended up just buying in TV shows or producing cheap - and safe - reality shows, content where you can use product placement, plus content that can be sponsored. Little chance of annoying any advertisers that way.

Do we want all TV, as well as our print media, ending up like that? It's already happening, and there are things going on right now that I think a lot of people are oblivious to.

 

[Busaholic]

I don't expect to read for free, because I'm aware that if everyone did that there would be nothing worthwhile to read any longer, only advertorials and the rest. I always thought The Times was absolutely right to erect a paywall and, in time, every decent and half-decent newspaper will have to do the same to survive. I'm hardly dripping with dosh but I subscribe to two newspapers and regularly buy a third. It should be possible to read a limited number of articles per month or whatever for free, like the FT do. With my subscriptions I spend less on my papers per day than a cup of tea in Costa, and even without the subscriptions it would equate to one large cappucino.

With regard to TV licensing, being so old I can remember when the only issue was whether you had a black and white or coloured set, plus if you had a battery set without the possibility of being plugged into the mains you escaped completely from having to have a licence: if you were a regular watcher I'd imagine the batteries would have cost more than the licence, but there'll always be people who like to think they're getting one over everyone else. Unfortunately, some of them go on to become MPs.
Or Gary Glitter.

 

[infobleep]

You can still buy a black and white licence. How you watch the pictures I don't know. Perhaps there are some black and white sets which can connect to set top boxes. Assuming those are not classed as colour TVs. PVRs are.

 

[Busaholic]

You can still buy a black and white licence. How you watch the pictures I don't know. Perhaps there are some black and white sets which can connect to set top boxes. Assuming those are not classed as colour TVs. PVRs are.

I'm sure I read somewhere when sets were being converted to digital that it was possible for B&W sets to be so converted. I did have a mind to dig my old one out of the loft and try it, but never got round to it.

 

[LateThanNever]

I don't expect to read for free, because I'm aware that if everyone did that there would be nothing worthwhile to read any longer, only advertorials and the rest. I always thought The Times was absolutely right to erect a paywall and, in time, every decent and half-decent newspaper will have to do the same to survive. I'm hardly dripping with dosh but I subscribe to two newspapers and regularly buy a third. It should be possible to read a limited number of articles per month or whatever for free, like the FT do. With my subscriptions I spend less on my papers per day than a cup of tea in Costa, and even without the subscriptions it would equate to one large cappucino.

I wonder. This seems to show a touching confidence in journalists, which I reget I don't share! After all here we all write items daily of profound incandescence without help from jounalists.... It is true that some journalists can be closer to the action than we are but that does not always improve their incisiveness!

 

[Busaholic]

I wonder. This seems to show a touching confidence in journalists, which I reget I don't share! After all here we all write items daily of profound incandescence without help from jounalists.... It is true that some journalists can be closer to the action than we are but that does not always improve their incisiveness!

Journalists on most local papers seem unworthy to be so described anymore, but there always have been, and I sincerely hope always will be, good campaigning journalists on newspapers, magazines, TV and radio, plus other good, solid journos who check their facts and present the evidence. Just in the field of public transport, I know the people who are worth reading, even if they express opinions contrary to my own, and the ones who say nothing new or are just recycling a press release. If anyone knows more about the procurement of railway services and the trains to run them than Roger Ford of 'Modern Railways' I'd be amazed, for instance.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Thought I'd better top and tail this one now I've had a response from TV licensing in the form of an email from a named person addressed to me, saying the letter they sent me was 'a technical error' and they were 'sorry for any upset caused'. The revocation of my licence had been unrevoked and my licence does indeed expire on 31st December 2015. There was absolutely no mention of any payment, past or future, so I expect my credit card has now been debited - I await my next bill with interest (not the monetary kind). They haven't addressed the issue of what if I'd panicked on receiving the original letter and paid again. Actually. their email could raise several questions, but I'll probably leave it there so long as I don't hear from them again.I don't have a printer, but I'm definitely going to get it printed out and keep with the original letter and my licence in a safe place. Incidentally, I never said I was 'upset' to get the letter, just very annoyed! Takes more than TV Licensing to upset me.

 

[deltic1989]

I don't object to paying the TV licence. It is after all a legal requirement, in a similar way to the fact that you don't have to buy road tax to own a car, but you do if you want to use it on a road.
What I object to is the bullying tactics used to collect it. One of the first visitors I had to my new house (within a day of moving in), was a TV licence inspector, who attempted to bully his way into my house, stating that I would be liable to a £1000 fine if i didn't let him in....After I refused, him access, he cautioned me, and my answers to his questions were "No Comment", throughout. He got annoyed and threatened to come back with a warrant, which I invited him to do so, and proceeded to direct the man to leave my property.
It is worth noting that at this point we had not yet taken delivery of our new TV, or had the Virgin services transferred. So we actually at that point didn't need a licence. Some would argue that I could have let the guy in to see that for himself. However with a stinking attitude from the outset, I didn't want the fellow in my house.

 

[jon0844]

I had great pleasure telling the guy on my doorstep to go away and get a warrant etc, even though I had a licence and if he'd checked he would have known - but clearly the gentleman had been told to walk onto a new housing estate and just treat everyone as a potential criminal.

And soon after came the people trying to get us to sign up to their electricity/gas service with varying levels of misselling. British Gas and npower being the worst (BG wanted me to think that they installed the pipes and meters, so only they could offer the best deal as they RUN the whole gas network, while npower just lied about being cheaper when they were anything but. But that's off topic, but I feel worth mentioning as the type of person that works for one will probably at some point work for the other, before ending up outside a train station trying to emotionally blackmail you into donating to whatever charity they're representing that day/week.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Could anyone ask for a licence fee reduction whilst the BBC flagship programme "Bargain Hunt.." is still being broadcast seven days a week?

 

[jon0844]

I think Government policy is to make daytime TV so mind numbingly boring that people without jobs will go and get one.

Working from home a lot of the time, I detest daytime TV and the BBC is no worse than the others. They're all at it!

 

[Bill EWS]

Beats Me! The TV Licence pays a nuber of TV channels and radio, all without adverts. Skye and others charge you a fortune to watch over 100 channels of mostly repeats and rubbish while they fir their programmes in between a sea of adverts. CRazy. People appear to love being ripped off.

 

[Johnuk123]

Beats Me! The TV Licence pays a nuber of TV channels and radio, all without adverts. Skye and others charge you a fortune to watch over 100 channels of mostly repeats and rubbish while they fir their programmes in between a sea of adverts. CRazy. People appear to love being ripped off.

If you don't like Sky don't watch it then, that's easily sorted.

The BBC on the other hand is a tax that you can't avoid, you may never watch or listen to a single thing on it but you'll still pay, that's what the problem is.

One thing is certain the licence fee is definitely on borrowed time.

 

[GatwickDepress]

I think Government policy is to make daytime TV so mind numbingly boring that people without jobs will go and get one.

Working from home a lot of the time, I detest daytime TV and the BBC is no worse than the others. They're all at it!

I like watching Doctors and repeats of Father Brown. It's more effective and cheaper than numbing the mind with alcohol.

 

[table38]

I'm thinking of setting up a new UK Rail Forum and charging everyone £145.50 a year to view it.

However as that business model might fail, I'm expecting the government to bring in a law requiring anyone viewing any other forum to pay me £145.50 whether they view my forum or not.

This will allow me to ensure that the quality of the threads on my new forum are far better than the run-of-the-mill posts and repeats you get on here.

I'll also expect the government to subsidise a foreign language version of my forum, and pay me to allow free access to the forum for anyone over 75.

Genius!