Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:01 am Post subject: TV Licensing
do i take it that now if you want a computer to be on the internet u need to buy a tv licence
according to the law
Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to install or use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as they're being shown on television without a valid TV Licence
but now TV is now on the internet - does this mean we all now have tv receivers and so inorder to have the internet on your computer you have to have a tv license?
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:47 am Post subject: Re: tv licensing
zimboy69 wrote:
do i take it that now if you want a computer to be on the internet u need to buy a tv licence
according to the law
Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to install or use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as they're being shown on television without a valid TV Licence
but now tv is now on the internet dose this mean we all now have tv receivers and so inorder to have the internet on your computer you have to have a tv license
No, it would only apply only if your computer is fitted with a TV tuner card to receive broadcast signals through an antenna. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:23 pm Post subject:
You also dont need a TV license for owning a TV only if it is used to recieve broadcasts. I have not had a license for 20+ years as i only use my TV set to view videos and dvds. My kids use PC for internet TV. Not sure about these new mobiles that receive TV. _________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
The act is talking about these USB tv receivers you can now buy. (very nice they are too)
But this does touch upon another interesting subject. First the death of telly itself.
All the major terrestrial channels now offer a "catch-up" service allowing you to watch previously broadcast shows. This allows you to watch a show when you want rather than being bound by TV schedules. It's a lovely thing in the modern world. The ability to watch what TV you want when you want and being able to pause it so you can go do your business is frankly wonderful. And yes I know things like sky+ and digital recorders allow you to do all this. There are also websites (I won't list them here for legal reasons) that go far beyond this and provide countless hours of entertainment.
The networks and producers have got in on this too, Fox for one now allows (though only American) people to watch their shows for free online. And it's true to say that I can now watch episodes of American shows for free online before they are broadcast here even on cable or satellite.
So why with all this so easily to hand would I have a telly? Well for live stuff, but that will go onto the internet too soon enough.
And this will be the question many people over the next few decades will ask themselves.
So how will the BBC fund itself if everyone starts watching things for free on their computer and so don't need a TV license? There's an obvious answer and it is being considered. The TV license like the radio license may be replaced by a PC license.
Oh and fish mobiles phones don't need any license as they run off batteries.
If the question is "do you need a tv licence to view live broadcast tv programmes on a pc?" then the answer is emphatically yes!! The possession of a device CAPABLE of receiving the tv signal means a licence is required. If a tv is disabled from receiving a signal then no licence is needed. _________________ "The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell.
You can possess a device like a TV without needing a TV license, IF you don't use it for watching TV. It doesn't seem to mention anything about disabling it, looking at the student bit mentioned later it appears it just needs to have it's aerial unplugged.
The Texas council representative in the UK told me that the Germans collect that tax. Is that true? He actually brought a case of harrassment against them and the German companies. I have an article but cannot find it now. Not sure I remember it all right.
Most European countries have it. The notable exceptions being Spain, Portugal, Bulgaria, Hungary, Lithuania and Latvia. Other public Broadcasters may also have advertising. The only countries to have advertising free telly is us and the Nordic countries excluding Iceland.
I believe it's a British company called Capita that now do that, used to be the post office. Capita run a ot of things in this country actually, the congestion charge, DSA and CRB. But I could be wrong about them being in charge of the license fee enforcement.
Sorry Zim is that addressed to me? I personally don't know of these stories or their results, I just referenced what the TV licensing folk say. I'm not going to deny the stories you report I'm just giving you the information which the TV folk provide. I take no responsibility for that.
Sorry Zim is that addressed to me? I personally don't know of these stories or their results, I just referenced what the TV licensing folk say. I'm not going to deny the stories you report I'm just giving you the information which the TV folk provide. I take no responsibility for that.
just asking anyone really
somthing else untill i read the quote i posted in the opening post i was under the impression it was owning a reciever was when u had to buy a tv license
if you asked the general public thats what 90% of them say
i have the feeling it will change so that computers will be included
About the guys in Wales. The enforcement officers visit homes without a license. Even if you can't or don't receive television they may give you a visit to check you told them the truth.
After all it is just a claim and if the way to prove that claim false is through the enforcement officers. Not sure about getting done, you shouldn't be if you can prove that you don't or can't receive television, of course this could be hard to do.
My neighbour has a tv and only uses it to watch videos. He has been visited by "licensing" and they accepted his story (which is true anyway) that he has no aerial. The tv otherwise could pick up a signal even if he used an indoor aerial. Seems to be ok for him to carry on without a licence apparently. _________________ "The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell.
I believe it's a British company called Capita that now do that, used to be the post office. Capita run a ot of things in this country actually, the congestion charge, DSA and CRB. But I could be wrong about them being in charge of the license fee enforcement.
Well, I looked and you are right, it is Capita. I found the articles:
It is a pretty intense battle that rakes in over 5 billion pounds a year so stakes are high.
Airwaves should be free, content can be creative in its selling. Government TV is just that - Government TV. Like the "movements" it will be played by the players not the people.
I personally don't have a problem with the license fee. It works out at less than 40p a day. And for that 40p a day not only do you get bbc 1,2,3,4,news and parliament, you also get a decent amount of radio stations and a well kept series of websites. For 40p a day it's not really that bad.
If we didn't have the BBC the bandwidth would be bought up by some company making it's money through adverts instead, probably someone like Murdoch.
If we didn't have the BBC the bandwidth would be bought up by some company making it's money through adverts instead, probably someone like Murdoch.
The people running the BBC nowadays are every bit as bad as Murdoch. The nonsense they serve up makes 40p a day highway robbery. BTW you are not to post in the main forums any more so kindly confine your contributions to critic's corner. _________________ "The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell.
I'm trying to discuss that with someone in charge right now if they would only reply. I can't work out why I've been confined to the critics corner as I'm not a critic. Also even if I was why should that prevent me discussing the license fee?
Let's say the famous rich Billionaire Armand Hammer made his money with the goal of just 1 cent from each person. You don't mind 40p a day? I won't even go into the garbage and soaps they produce, but damn, there is an old saying a fool and his money are soon parted.
51,000,000 Brits at 40p a day is a lot of money to run 4 stations in one building with a couple websites. I have been a guest of the BBC on several occasions and appeared on their financial programs. I also was on BBC 1 radio and am in the British Blues Archives as a musician. Financial Times once dedicated a half page to my OnlineTV.com efforts with full 8x10 color glossy pictures (just joking about the glossy). I got to see their full operation, as my project was to broadcast the Parliament over the Internet. I hung a lot around Westminster. Needless to say your 40p is a lot when put with everyone else’s each day and I would estimate the costs at less than 10 percent of the revenues.
When I was special consultant to Bill Baker, president of the PBS (WNET NYC) in the USA it was to redesign the corporate structure to cut 50 million from the operations. They have dozens of sites and produce shows for 100's of PBS networks around the nation on a budget of 150 million US.
I think you do not understand the value of your 40p vs. the costs of running a television network/producing/buying and broadcasting shows. I was VP of Online Interactive for the Viacom staging companies in NY and they paid me mid six figures just to learn television broadcasting.
What I do learn from you is that people just have no idea how badly they are getting ripped off. So do you take advantage and take their 40p leaving them happy in the pig slough or do you wake them up? Sometimes I think I should take the money and pile more manure on the pigs but I still can't feel good about that. But it is funny in a "jack ass" sort of way.
Did you read the Texan/Brit story about the German's taking the money and having authority in the UK?
raised this Telegraph article from yesterday in which the BBC appear to be trying to win people over that their license fee is beneficial.
Quote:
This reported in the telegraph today
Could it be that Sir Michael Lyons is making this statement due to the amount of people refusing to pay for a License?
He is obviously trying to justify the extortionate amount they make from the public.
The BBC boosts the economy by £6.5billion; twice as much as licence fee
By Richard Alleyne
Last Updated: 5:30PM BST 17/07/2008
The BBC contributes £6.5billion to the economy; about twice as much as it receives in licence fee payments, according to Sir Michael Lyons, the chairman of the corporation's trust.
The BBC Trust, the corporation's governing body, estimates that the broadcaster contributes £5billion to the creative wealth of the country and another £1.5billion to the rest of the economy.
That means for every pound it takes out in licence fee payments - more than £3billion a year - the report claims it gives £2 back.
The report, disclosed by Sir Michael in a speech to the European Union, also claims that far from it squeezing the commercial sector it acts as a catalyst for growth and helps it through lean times when rival channels are cutting back.
Article continues
advertisement
Click to learn more...
But critics of the corporation condemned the findings, which they said ignored the distorting affect the corporation had on the free market.
Philip Davies, the Conservative MP who sits on the culture, media and sport select committee, said: "Like most people I am very cynical about reports that reflect exactly the views of those that have commissioned it.
"The general public see that every other channel provides programmes free of charge and they have to pay for the BBC.
"Most people would consider it even better value for money if they didn't have to pay anything at all. The BBC causes damage to the commercial sector by inflating production prices and squeezes their market.
"Every other broadcaster contributes to the economy but we don't have to pay for them."
The figures come at a time when the debate over the licence fee and public sector broadcasting reaches a critical stage.
In an era where multi-channel digital television and the internet are putting pressure on audience shares, Channel 4 is seeking a £150m annual share of public money by 2012, and ITV is looking at the possibility of surrendering its public sector broadcasting role altogether.
The BBC has repeatedly mounted a robust defence of the licence fee and has sought to counter the idea that the corporation prevents commercial broadcasters from thriving.
Sir Michael said the overall economic impact of the BBC is "positive".
"Removing licence fee funded services would be unlikely to provide a significant boost to commercial channels - all it would do is take away money from the broadcasting supply chain," he added.
"The BBC is a stable source of funding and because of this it sustains a much more vibrant independent production sector in the UK than would otherwise be the case, particularly when the economy goes through hard times.
"It is no wonder that the UK punches above its weight in the global media market: the second biggest exporter of television programmes after the US and the leading exporter of formats," he added,
He said that many of the ways in which the BBC contributed to the general UK economy were "intangibles such as innovation, imagination and creativity".
"These are what give an economy the edge when competing in a global market. The BBC's public purpose of stimulating creativity should, I believe, be read in this context."
The report was carried out by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, the financial consultants, on the request of the BBC Trust.
Another article from Feb
Quote:
BBC wants happy new image for TV licence fee
By Chris Hastings and Beth Jones
Last Updated: 2:36am GMT 03/02/2008
How do you win public support for an unpopular tax? Simple, just give it a new name and a fancy emblem.
The BBC is contemplating a radical revamp of the television licence fee to make it more acceptable to the public.
Corporation bosses and TV Licensing, the authority that collects the money for the BBC, believe the existing name and logo are old-fashioned and unattractive.
They aim to make the image more appealing and to reflect the fact that the BBC also provides radio and internet services, as well as television programmes online and on mobile phones.
The proposal, which has been discussed by the BBC's Executive Board, would require a change in the law.
Minutes of the meeting, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, record "the need for TV Licensing to update its image?... and to investigate whether the name of television licence should be updated to take account of the changing media world".
The minutes also state: "The board noted the work to change the TV Licensing logo and the ongoing research into a name change."
The move has prompted criticism and ridicule. John Beyer, of Mediawatch-UK, the viewers' watchdog, said the rebranding exercise was a waste of money.
"Everyone's got to pay it whether you like it or not," he said, "so a new logo seems superfluous. It's not what money ought to be spent on."
Esther Rantzen, the broadcaster, said: "I would like to know how much of my licence fee is going to brand specialists and agencies to conjure up this sort of thing.
"I suppose they could do a variation of 'It Could Be You', with a bailiff with a club and a quivering guilty non-payer.
"No one is going to tempt people into paying: the only method is the fear of what will happen if you don't."
Others, however, welcomed the idea. Richard Buchanan at Dave, a brand consultancy which has worked with ITN, said the present name and logo were unimaginative, bureaucratic and more suited to a utility company.
He said: "The name feels antiquated. It feels like a punishment - pay up or the Telly Nazis will come and get you. The logo looks like it's in the business of money collection, like a water board. You need to make people feel good about paying.
"You need people to imagine a world where public service broadcasting doesn't exist. You can already see the adverts - glum families staring at blank televisions that are playing absolutely nothing. No EastEnders, no Top Gear, no Match of the Day, no Radio 1, 2, 3, 4."
Don Foster, the Liberal Democrat culture spokesman, said the name should reflect the internet age, but added: "A simple change of name and logo is all that is needed.
"It doesn't need to cost a huge amount, especially as the BBC has financial difficulties."
A spokesman for TV Licensing said: "We are reviewing the logo as the present one has been in use for almost 20 years and doesn't work well online."
There are 25 million licences in Britain, costing £135.50 per household. About 1,000 evaders are caught every day. (That's 365,000 a year - what nonsense!)
TPUC also suggests not paying the license fee on grounds of Treason and corruption within the BBC here http://www.tpuc.org/stoppayingtvlicencefees (detailed instructions and letters to state your rights not to pay are provided)
Also of note is that many non license fee payers find that nothing ever happens to them and that the ability of enforcement officers to detect if you even have a TV signal at all, is perhaps a sham, likewise the claims of a 1000 evaders caught a day.
This lecture 'Piracy is Good' by Mark Pesce at the Australian Film Television and Radio School, about the future of TV distribution in the age of P2P networks is worth a gander too. Helps to sure up why the TV moving to the PC and a subsequent licence may have developed. Though this guys peers didnt seem too hot on the idea at the time of this talk. Reveals some interesting advertising techniques aswell if memory serves.
Link _________________ The Peoples United Collective TPUC.ORG
The TV detector van is a bit of a con. Yes they can detect if you are using a TV or similar but only if it is within approx 10 metres of you house. They do not just drive around each town and homming in on each house. The BBC have a list of all the houses without a licence so just park up near them and check them.
So if it impossible for a van to get within about 15 metres of your house you are probably quite safe.
The TV detector van is a bit of a con. Yes they can detect if you are using a TV or similar but only if it is within approx 10 metres of you house. They do not just drive around each town and homming in on each house. The BBC have a list of all the houses without a licence so just park up near them and check them.
So if it impossible for a van to get within about 15 metres of your house you are probably quite safe.
dude are u sure they dont just look at the records to see who has bought a license and then knock on the houses of the people who havent bought one
and if a tv emits a signal then why are they called tv recivers
also i was speaking some 10 years ago to a old university lecturer (who used to teach electronics) about this very subject and he asked a tv detector van man how it works
and all he coudl do was show him a few cathode ray tubes ect and not much else at the time the detector man vas very vague about how it all works
and had any one ever been done with just detector van evidence
if they was really good at detecting then wouldnt they be able to sweap the estate and next thing you get a fixed penalty like a speeding fine
and non payment your in court
just one more question dose anyone really know of a single person who has been fined
i know people who have been caught then given time to buy a licence but no one i know has ever been fined
(im not saying there hasnt but just wondering if anyone knows anyone)
"dude are u sure they dont just look at the records to see who has bought a license and then knock on the houses of the people who havent bought one"
There is an endless process of letters before they knock on your door first. The TV fans are only used in cases when a person has been very pesky in not replying to the letters or answering the door when an enforcement officer visits.
The TV vans do work but are an act of propaganda, they're not deployed in any great numbers and don't go around scanning neighborhoods.
just one more question dose anyone really know of a single person who has been fined
Many years ago (about twenty) I knew a woman who was fined after admitting, when the man knocked at her door, that she didn't have a licence but confessed to having and watching tv. He said he had detected she was receiving a signal. She was fined. More recently a woman locally was fined although she had bought a licence for decades but forget last year as her daughhter had been killed in a road accident and she had let it slip. She was fined as well. She immediately admitted she was watching a tv but her excuse went unheeded. _________________ "The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell.
This is the most accurate explanation from that link:
Quote:
They work by detecting the electromagnetic signature that your television gives off. They are so accurate that they can tell you where in the house the TV is, and they can indeed see the channel you are watching.
What we dont know and of course they wont tell you has how modern and high tech the equipment they have is. The technology is available do do everything the quote above states and more. Ask anyone who has worked in the military about how they defend there SECRET computers etc against spies using the same technology!!
My guess is as they already know which house does not have a license all they need as very basic low tech scanners to spot check.
"Ask anyone who has worked in the military about how they defend there SECRET computers etc against spies using the same technology!!"
Actually it's not as good as you would think, there was a report just the other day about how much stuff the MOD uses each year, and attacks like Titan rain and Moonlight Maze show that we are certainly not totally protected when it comes to cyber warfare. The military is actually struggling to keep up. Electronic warfare is not funded enough and it needs to be.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 9:26 pm Post subject:
zimboy69 wrote:
and if a tv emits a signal then why are they called tv recivers
Your traditional TV receives and decodes an airborne signal tuned into via the antenna, and is indeed a radio signal receiver.
However, the high tension voltage coils that drive the traditional Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) also emit on the electromagnetic spectrum while they're illuminating the phosphor dots on your screen. That's the signal that the TV detector vans (and hand-held appartus) hunt out, and also what espionage types use to monitor what's on their target's computer screens.
Newer low voltage LCD flat screens don't operate that way and don't transmit any such signal. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
While they don't emit a signal such as that, all electronic equipment can be detected with a good enough device. By operating electronically they will also emit a small amount of magnetism and other EM radiation. If you have a sensitive enough detector it lets you check if that apparently empty cave/bunker/house really is empty.
I suppose you could distinguish a flat screen TV by the shape of the detection you get from such a device, but I really doubt that is how these things work, it's fairly top of the range stuff to get something that precise and I doubt the licensing have something at all close to something that sophisticated.
If they can detect a specific mobile phone and locate it to within a few feet of accuracy within seconds of it being switched on (and they can!), I am guessing they can tell if a tv set is in a house and is being used. _________________ "The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
