TV licencing
Every so often we get a story in the Shuttle about catching TV licence evaders and it seems that every time we get one or more people not understanding how it works. To be fair I'm not surprised.
TV licencing is covered by Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003 and doesn't make a legible read and is hardly assisted that the definitions of terms used, including that of what a television receiver actually is, is covered by another piece of legislation the Communications (Television Licencing) Regulations 2004. Add in the proliferation of devices that can now receive television broadcasts and it can get quite confusing.
In reality stripped of all the legalese there's only one simple concept to grasp: the use of a public broadcast.
If you use a public broadcast you need a licence; if you don't then you don't.
So:
If you're watching a programme through your aerial you're using a public broadcast.
If you're watching a programme that you recorded through an aerial you were using a public broadcast.
If you're watching a programme through a satellite dish you're using a public broadcast.
If you're watching a programme that you recorded through a satellite dish you were using a public broadcast.
If you're watching a programme through a cable connection you're using a public broadcast.
If you're watching a programme that you recorded through a cable connection you were using a public broadcast.
However:
If you're watching a programme from a DVD you are not using a public broadcast.
If you're watching security feed footage you are not using a public broadcast.
If you're watching a catch-up programme via iPlayer/Sky Anytime/etc. you are not using a public broadcast.
The key point is not in the possession of equipment that can receive a public broadcast but the using of said broadcast.
10 comments:
Interesting. I was told that if you possess a piece of string which could plausibly be wetted and put under tension in such a way that it could plausibly transmit a TV signal, then you need a TV license.
In other words, everybody needs a TV license. Because, let's face it, it is impossible to prove that you're not watching TV. Unless you live in a mud hut with no electricity and can somehow prove that there are no metallic objects in your possession.
It's up to the authority to prove, or that it is reasonable to presume that, you were watching a television broadcast.
But in practice - yeah pretty much everyone needs a licence.
Then again, pretty much everyone watches TV.
Except me. Which is probably the only reason this bothers me…
Not as if there's really anything worth watching on anyway. I watch the morning news to see if anything's happened; Eggheads because of the interesting trivia; 10 o'clock show, mainly for Charlie Brooker; and I check to see if there are any films that may be of interest. Probably about an hour a day averaged over a week.
I have apparently reached the age where I begin to delude myself that there used to be good stuff on TV… Sadly this no longer seems to be the case. If there is any remotely sciency programming, it's dumbed down to the point where a cat could understand it.
"I have apparently reached the age where I begin to delude myself that there used to be good stuff on TV"
Until you get to watch it again and wonder what you ever saw in "The A-Team" or "Knight Rider" :-)
"Horizon" seems to have its ups and downs; as does "Panorama"; "Despatches" I find consistently good. "The Gadget Show" seems to have gone the way of "Top Gear"; "Watchdog" seems to have lost its fangs, and there's nothing to match "Tomorrow's World" any more.
The period stuff has turned into soap opera or have become so arch in an attempt to reflect modernity; the science has become more about the fancy graphics; even so much of the humour has become trite and predictable. Sure there's the odd glint of something worth watching, but it can too often outstay its welcome.
Personally I blame the BBC - it was the channel that set the benchmark being able to produce what it thought it would good rather than marketable. However with an eye on overseas markets; DVD sales; magazines; and toy lines it's become little different to the others.
FWIW, I never saw anything in Knight Rider or The A-Team. :-P
I did, however, enjoy watching Rough Science. Even if every task did involve that physicist saying “right, we'll need a coil of wire…” ;-)
Then again, I also liked Thundercats, so what do I know?
Unfortunately, it seems today everything has to be about “reality TV”, or else crime and violence. Anything with any actual, you know, intellectual content just isn't popular. *sigh*
“You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>”
But not <em>, apparently… How arbitrary.
Ah the A-Team et al were just a bit of escapist fun and, worryingly, probably the only decent early-teen show on at the time.
Intellectually-themed I note that post-Eggheads on BBC2 is the return of "My Life in Books" I caught the beginning last night where someone was deconstructing "Black Beauty". I mean sure applause due to the idea, but why do they always seem to pick such 'worthy' tomes?
Oh Postscript - Thundercats ruled! :-)
Post a Comment