'Austerity' at the BBC

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by martyh

No it is not ,how does a television receiver, receive non live transmissions,it can't, it can only receive live transmissions .The reason that distinction is made is to make it clear that watching only on demand content does not require a licence .Make no mistake the law is clear

I am a bit confused by your reply because a television receiver can of course receive non live transmissions from a DVD player, VHS player, CCTV camera or even an old computer game can be connected to a TV via the antenna socket. UHF modulators are still available for anyone to connect any video device to a TV antenna socket.

The wording of official statements are way behind the technology available. (Or is it deliberately aiming to confuse) The other side of the coin of course is that live TV can be viewed on a computer or mobile phone via the internet, if the BBC have their way we will require a TVL for those devices as well.

The TVL define live transmissions as watching live broadcasts or recording live TV transmissions as they are being broadcasted to watch later.

Originally Posted by Escapee

I am a bit confused by your reply because a television receiver can of course receive non live transmissions from a DVD player, VHS player, CCTV camera or even an old computer game can be connected to a TV via the antenna socket. UHF modulators are still available for anyone to connect any video device to a TV antenna socket.

The wording of official statements are way behind the technology available. (Or is it deliberately aiming to confuse) The other side of the coin of course is that live TV can be viewed on a computer or mobile phone via the internet, if the BBC have their way we will require a TVL for those devices as well.

The TVL define live transmissions as watching or recording live TV transmissions to watch later as they are broadcasted.

so how is that unclear and any different from the wording in the law .A live transmission is a transmission from the BBC transmitter to your tv showing a program as it is being transmitted ,you cannot delay the transmission at the tv/xbox/pc/or any other device ,it is always a live transmission and cannot be delayed .You can record that transmission for later viewing but that means you still received the live transmission and still have to pay the TVL.You appear to be looking for loopholes by means of ambiguity in the wording where none exist .Many have tried before and failed ,some have even ended up in jail for not paying the fine imposed

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by martyh

so how is that unclear and any different from the wording in the law .A live transmission is a transmission from the BBC transmitter to your tv showing a program as it is being transmitted ,you cannot delay the transmission at the tv/xbox/pc/or any other device ,it is always a live transmission and cannot be delayed .You can record that transmission for later viewing but that means you still received the live transmission and still have to pay the TVL.You appear to be looking for loopholes by means of ambiguity in the wording where none exist .Many have tried before and failed ,some have even ended up in jail for not paying the fine imposed

I am not the one looking for loopholes, you now appear to be agreeing with what I have been saying and said in my previous post.

'A TV licence is required to watch live TV transmissions as they are broadcasted or the recording of live TV broadcasts for viewing at a later date'

A TV licence is not required to view transmissions that are not being broadcasted live, such examples are DVDs, iplayer and any other non-live video content streamed off the internet. (I recall reading somewhere I think on their own website that TVL regard live as up to and including 'something like' 15 mins broadcast delay)

Therefore one could conclude that if I do not watch live TV and have no means of receiving it I do not need a TVL. The problem is that it's not that easy because a PC and mobile phone is also capable of receiving live TV.

Originally Posted by Escapee

I am not the one looking for loopholes, you now appear to be agreeing with what I have been saying and said in my previous post.

A TV licence is not required to view transmissions that are not being broadcasted live, such examples are DVDs, iplayer and any other non-live video content streamed off the internet. (I recall reading somewhere I think on their own website that TVL regard live as up to and including 'something like' 15 mins broadcast delay)

Therefore one could conclude that if I do not watch live TV and have no means of receiving it I do not need a TVL. The problem is that it's not that easy because a PC and mobile phone is also capable of receiving live TV.

Just to clarify

You said it was misleading ,i do not see any ambiguity at all .If you own or use any device capable of receiving live transmissions you need a licence ,yes even a phone or pc that has that capability.We differ in that you see the non inclusion of the phrase "live transmission" in the wording of the act as misleading.It's not included because it is not needed, as transmissions are always live ,you must receive it live in order to record it.

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

I have no doubt this IS deliberate in order to maximise the revenue for the BBC.

What a load of rubbish.

Even then they winge about having to make economies that are second nature for a commercial company....

Such as?

If such a company doesn't provide programmes that sufficient audience wish to watch then they go to the wall.

Which is another good reason for the BBC; so they can (and do) make programmes that commercial broadcasters won't.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by martyh

Just to clarify

You said it was misleading ,i do not see any ambiguity at all .If you own or use any device capable of receiving live transmissions you need a licence ,yes even a phone or pc that has that capability.We differ in that you see the non inclusion of the phrase "live transmission" in the wording of the act as misleading.It's not included because it is not needed, as transmissions are always live ,you must receive it live in order to record it.

Yes It is misleading the act should be clearer and sate the word 'live transmission'. The TVL site does use those words. In fact a transmission can be nothing other than live, and a video signal from a DVD player is a live transmission through a cable.

From TVL

You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.

Watching TV on the internet
You need to be covered by a licence if you watch TV online at the same time as it's being broadcast on conventional TV in the UK or the Channel Islands.

and this

With today’s technology, you can watch TV on more devices than ever, whenever it suits you best. This means a TV Licence doesn’t just cover you to watch TV at home on a TV set. You can also watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV, through all of these devices:

Computers, including laptops and tablets
Mobile phones
Games consoles
Digital boxes, e.g. Freeview, Sky, Virgin, BT Vision
DVD/VHS/Blu-ray recorders.

As long as the address where you live is licensed, you’re also covered to watch TV outside your home using any device powered solely by its own internal batteries. This includes your mobile phone, laptop and tablet.

Exception: If you only watch catch-up services online, then you don’t need a licence. For example, you don’t need one to use BBC iPlayer, or ITV player, to catch up on programmes after they have been shown on TV

They also say this. (No mention of live broadcast but surely what they mean, but again they like to leave things unclear)

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. The Act empowers the BBC to make and amend the terms and conditions of a licence. It allows the government to make regulations to exempt or reduce the licence fee for certain persons in certain circumstances. It also makes it an offence for anyone to have any television receiver in their possession or under their control who intends to install or use it in contravention of the main offence (above), or knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person intends to install or use a television receiver in contravention of the main offence.

The issue I have with the many statements that can be found is one of deliberate confusion, yes read the parts you want and the answer is there but they have been deliberate in not stating it in one concise paragraph.

Originally Posted by Escapee

Yes It is misleading the act should be clearer and sate the word 'live transmission'. The TVL site does use those words. In fact a transmission can be nothing other than live, and a video signal from a DVD player is a live transmission through a cable.

From TVL





and this



They also say this. (No mention of live broadcast but surely what they mean, but again they like to leave things unclear)



The issue I have with the many statements that can be found is one of deliberate confusion, yes read the parts you want and the answer is there but they have been deliberate in not stating it in one concise paragraph.

You are going around in circles and contradicting your original stance ,you said .. television receiver can of course receive non live transmissions....,you have just said above that ...In fact a transmission can be nothing other than live,......the latter being correct and what i have said all along and why their is no need to include the phrase in the legislation.Actual legislation is never cut down to a "concise paragraph" because it would not be clear and would leave too many loopholes ,that's why we need trained legal people to understand it sometimes ,however in this case it is simple and concise leaving no confusion.
Anyway this has gone waaaayyyy off topic and the result is you still need a tv licence if you own any device capable of receiving live transmissions

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by martyh

and the result is you still need a tv licence if you own any device capable of receiving live transmissions

We had better agree to differ on that one then, because my interpretation is that capable means having an antenna connected and the channels tuned into the receiver. I do not interpret it as meaning I need a TVL just because I own a TV, PC or mobile phone etc.

The reason for circles over the term live is because live transmission can mean many different things. i.e. The news is live, but Eastenders is not, although both are considered live from a TV broadcast point of view.

I would like to make it clear that I have no intention of viewing live TV without paying for a TVL. My circumstances are that due to work commitment and the amount of time I spend at my partners house means that I have little time at my own house. As a result of this I make best use of this time and reality TV or soaps are not in my opinion valuable use of my time, I prefer to view either DVDs or recently I have been watching university lectures on Academic Earth.

I appreciate my personal circumstances differ from the majority. When I purchased the property 7 years ago I was working away and did not have a TV licence for approx 3 years because any spare time I had was spent doing DIY, I know from experience back then that TVL will not believe that someone can live without TV or even just without live TV.

Originally Posted by Escapee

We had better agree to differ on that one then, because my interpretation is that capable means having an antenna connected and the channels tuned into the receiver. I do not interpret it as meaning I need a TVL just because I own a TV, PC or mobile phone etc.

The reason for circles over the term live is because live transmission can mean many different things. i.e. The news is live, but Eastenders is not, although both are considered live from a TV broadcast point of view.
.

Eastenders is a live transmission of a recorded program .Anything coming from the transmitter to the receiver in your tv/laptop/pc/xbox/phone etc is considered a live transmission it can be nothing else ,unless you are watching on demand content .The law and the way it is written could not be clearer

I do not interpret it as meaning I need a TVL just because I own a TV, PC or mobile phone etc.

You don't need to interpret it, it is clear, .You can rip out the receiver in your tv and then you won't need a TVL ,a PC does not need one unless you fit a tv card and so on

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by martyh

You don't need to interpret it, it is clear, .You can rip out the receiver in your tv and then you won't need a TVL ,a PC does not need one unless you fit a tv card and so on

That is not correct:

You can as you put it 'rip out the receiver in your tv', but this would not be enough for TVL because you could of course use a Freesat box etc and use the video output to the TV. This argument of removing the tuner was a very old one and invalid many years ago with the introduction of the video recorder with it's own built in UHF tuner.

Also TV can be streamed live over the internet without needing a TV card, so with your interpretation of the rules would mean that anyone with a computer and an internet connection would need a TV licence.

Originally Posted by Escapee

That is not correct:

You can as you put it 'rip out the receiver in your tv', but this would not be enough for TVL because you could of course use a Freesat box etc and use the video output to the TV. This argument of removing the tuner was a very old one and invalid many years ago with the introduction of the video recorder with it's own built in UHF tuner.

Also TV can be streamed live over the internet without needing a TV card, so with your interpretation of the rules would mean that anyone with a computer and an internet connection would need a TV licence.

I give up ,you are obviously just arguing for arguings sake .Of course you can use the dvd or vhs or freestat ,they count as a device capable of recieving live transmission in their own right therefore requiring a licence even if you don't own a tv with which to watch the transmissions.I really don't know what is so hard about understanding this simple piece of legislation .

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by martyh

I give up ,you are obviously just arguing for arguings sake .Of course you can use the dvd or vhs or freestat ,they count as a device capable of recieving live transmission in their own right therefore requiring a licence even if you don't own a tv with which to watch the transmissions.I really don't know what is so hard about understanding this simple piece of legislation .

And I thought it was you arguing for the sake of it, we seem to have gone a complete circle.

All I was trying to point out was that what is said in section 363 and what TVL say is confusing, and in the case of TVL they want people who are unsure to buy a licence if they need it or not.

TVL are just like any door to door salesman, they want a sale and care little if you need their product or not. The difference with TVL is that they resort to harassment and threats if you do not wish to use their product and decline to purchase it.

Originally Posted by Escapee

All I was trying to point out was that what is said in section 363 and what TVL say is confusing,
.

Only to you apparently ,they say exactly the same thing just different words

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by martyh

Only to you apparently ,they say exactly the same thing just different words

I give up now

The TV licence permits use of equipment to receive live TV, not ownership of that equipment. It doesnt matter how many TVs, Freesat boxes or VHS machines you own, if you don't use them to receive live TV, you don't need a licence. No need to rip any tuners out of anything.

It is in TVL's interest to muddy the waters because they are an agent that gets commission on licence sales so they want every household to have one, whether it's needed or not. Also, to be fair to them (not that they deserve it), almost every household in the UK does watch live telly, so a significant proportion of the unlicensed addresses in the country almost certainly *do* need a licence and the door-to-door enforcers salesmen agents have met every chav and scutter and heard all their lame excuses.