I have no TV but watch the news, weather etc on computer as well as using
bbc iplayer.
I regularly get a notice from the licencing authority telling me that if I
have a receiver (including computer) that can receive "live" tv then I must
buy a licence.
Now I have tried several things to see what is "live".
My digital radio plays the same programme slightly later than my FM radio so
the digital radio cannot be "live".
I was in away at New Year and both watched and listened to the Vienna New
Year concert, it was "live" on FM radio, slightly later on digital radio and
later still on TV so that was not "live",
The news and weather from bbc on the computer are also later than those on a
tv.
Does anyone know what "live" really means?
Thank you.

In article ,
"Stewart" writes:
I have no TV but watch the news, weather etc on computer as well as using
bbc iplayer.
I regularly get a notice from the licencing authority telling me that if I
have a receiver (including computer) that can receive "live" tv then I must
buy a licence.
Now I have tried several things to see what is "live".
My digital radio plays the same programme slightly later than my FM radio so
the digital radio cannot be "live".
I was in away at New Year and both watched and listened to the Vienna New
Year concert, it was "live" on FM radio, slightly later on digital radio and
later still on TV so that was not "live",

Transmission and processing delays (more obvious with digital than
analogue) would not prevent it still counting as live.

I recall reading that "live" in this context means receiving any
part of a programme whilst the programme is still being broadcast,
but I don't know where that came from.

The news and weather from bbc on the computer are also later than those on a
tv.
Does anyone know what "live" really means?

I think you have to make sure you don't receive a program until
the broadcast of it has finished.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Stewart wrote:
I have no TV but watch the news, weather etc on computer as well as using
bbc iplayer.
I regularly get a notice from the licencing authority telling me that if I
have a receiver (including computer) that can receive "live" tv then I must
buy a licence.
Now I have tried several things to see what is "live".
My digital radio plays the same programme slightly later than my FM radio so
the digital radio cannot be "live".
I was in away at New Year and both watched and listened to the Vienna New
Year concert, it was "live" on FM radio, slightly later on digital radio and
later still on TV so that was not "live",
The news and weather from bbc on the computer are also later than those on a
tv.
Does anyone know what "live" really means?

endlessly discussed elsewhere.

The conclusion being that 'live' means that the WHOLE program is not
buffered anywhere. Or in practical terms, you cant halfway through go
back and watch it from the start.

In short, technically, you need a license.




Thank you.

In article ,
(Andrew Gabriel) writes:
In article ,
"Stewart" writes:
I have no TV but watch the news, weather etc on computer as well as using
bbc iplayer.
I regularly get a notice from the licencing authority telling me that if I
have a receiver (including computer) that can receive "live" tv then I must
buy a licence.
Now I have tried several things to see what is "live".
My digital radio plays the same programme slightly later than my FM radio so
the digital radio cannot be "live".
I was in away at New Year and both watched and listened to the Vienna New
Year concert, it was "live" on FM radio, slightly later on digital radio and
later still on TV so that was not "live",

Transmission and processing delays (more obvious with digital than
analogue) would not prevent it still counting as live.

I recall reading that "live" in this context means receiving any
part of a programme whilst the programme is still being broadcast,
but I don't know where that came from.

Quick browse of the tv licensing website says much the same; for it
not to count as "live", you mustn't start receiving it until after
the broadcast has finished. (Also note that it's the receiving of it
and not the listening to it which needs a license.)

The news and weather from bbc on the computer are also later than those on a
tv.
Does anyone know what "live" really means?

I think you have to make sure you don't receive a program until
the broadcast of it has finished.


--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:36:27 +0000, Stewart wrote:

I have no TV but watch the news, weather etc on computer as well as
using bbc iplayer.
I regularly get a notice from the licencing authority telling me that if
I have a receiver (including computer) that can receive "live" tv then I
must buy a licence.
Now I have tried several things to see what is "live". My digital radio
plays the same programme slightly later than my FM radio so the digital
radio cannot be "live".

Mere sophistry. Still "live" although the use of the word "live" is a
mistake by whoever used it!

I was in away at New Year and both watched and listened to the Vienna
New Year concert, it was "live" on FM radio, slightly later on digital
radio and later still on TV so that was not "live", The news and weather
from bbc on the computer are also later than those on a tv.
Does anyone know what "live" really means? Thank you.

The TV licensing site says:

"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."

So, "as it's being broadcast" is the critical thing. The slight digital
delay wouldn't count unless you tried with an expensive lawyer.

Also useful...

"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.

Video recorders and digital recorders like Sky+
You need a licence if you record TV as it's broadcast, whether that's
on a conventional video recorder or digital box.

However, you dont need to be covered by a licence if youre only using
€˜on-demand services to watch programmes after they have gone out on TV.
So, you need a licence to watch any channel live online, but you wouldnt
need one to use BBC iPlayer to catch up on an episode of a programme you
missed, for example.

Mobile phones
A licence covers you to watch TV as it's broadcast on a mobile phone,
whether you're at home or out and about. If you are covered by a valid
licence at the address where you live, you will be licensed to use any
device powered solely by its own internal batteries outside the home too."



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:36:27 +0000, Stewart wrote:


Also useful...

"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.


The law uses the words similar to "capable of receiving broadcasts".
Therefore if there are live broadcast on the 'net, your system will be
capable of receiving then, and hence you theoretically need a licence.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:36:27 +0000, Stewart wrote:


Also useful...

"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.


The law uses the words similar to "capable of receiving broadcasts".
Therefore if there are live broadcast on the 'net, your system will be
capable of receiving then, and hence you theoretically need a licence.

Nonsense.

Yellow wrote:
"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:36:27 +0000, Stewart wrote:


Also useful...

"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.

The law uses the words similar to "capable of receiving broadcasts".
Therefore if there are live broadcast on the 'net, your system will be
capable of receiving then, and hence you theoretically need a licence.

Nonsense.


No, true.

The burden of proof is on you to show that the requisite plugins are not
installed etc etc.

The whole license system and legislation is possibly nonsense, but that
statement about the legal position is not.

Stewart wrote:

I have no TV but watch the news, weather etc on computer as well as using
bbc iplayer.
I regularly get a notice from the licencing authority telling me that if I
have a receiver (including computer) that can receive "live" tv then I must
buy a licence.
Now I have tried several things to see what is "live".
My digital radio plays the same programme slightly later than my FM radio so
the digital radio cannot be "live".
I was in away at New Year and both watched and listened to the Vienna New
Year concert, it was "live" on FM radio, slightly later on digital radio and
later still on TV so that was not "live",
The news and weather from bbc on the computer are also later than those on a
tv.
Does anyone know what "live" really means?
Thank you.


AIUI the programmes go out in what is called 'transport stream' (.ts)
format. For subsequent replay, they have to be reprocessed into the
relevant file formats (mpeg, etc), and they are not processed until
the live programmes have finished. The delay in doing this is about 1
to 2 hours.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Yellow wrote:
"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:36:27 +0000, Stewart wrote:


Also useful...

"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.

The law uses the words similar to "capable of receiving broadcasts".
Therefore if there are live broadcast on the 'net, your system will be
capable of receiving then, and hence you theoretically need a licence.

Nonsense.
No, true.

The burden of proof is on you to show that the requisite plugins are not
installed etc etc.

The whole license system and legislation is possibly nonsense, but that
statement about the legal position is not.

Unless you have a stream of data containg a live TV program being fired at
your computer, and the software on your computer is decodng it, then your
computer in not capable of recieving live TV.

On Jan 12, 3:29*pm, "Toby" wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in ...



Yellow wrote:
"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:36:27 +0000, Stewart wrote:

Also useful...

"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.

The law uses the words similar to "capable of receiving broadcasts".
Therefore if there are live broadcast on the 'net, your system will be
capable of receiving then, and hence you theoretically need a licence..

Nonsense.
No, true.

The burden of proof is on you to show that the requisite plugins are not
installed etc etc.

The whole license system and legislation is possibly nonsense, but that
statement about the legal position is not.

Unless you have a stream of data containg a live TV program being fired at
your computer, and the software on your computer is decodng it, then your
computer in not capable of recieving live TV.

If your TV is turned off, it's not capable of receiving live TV. You
still need a license. Get the idea?

MBQ

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Yellow wrote:
"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:36:27 +0000, Stewart wrote:


Also useful...

"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.

The law uses the words similar to "capable of receiving broadcasts".
Therefore if there are live broadcast on the 'net, your system will be
capable of receiving then, and hence you theoretically need a licence.

Nonsense.
No, true.

Is so.

The burden of proof is on you to show that the requisite plugins are not
installed etc etc.

That is nonsense because any "out the box" computer will be able to
"receive" TV without additional software because a browser and flash is all
you need.

The whole license system and legislation is possibly nonsense, but that
statement about the legal position is not.

Lots of rubbish is written about whether or not you need a TV licence but if
you are not "watching live" TV, simply put, you do not.

Toby wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Yellow wrote:
"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:36:27 +0000, Stewart wrote:


Also useful...

"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.

The law uses the words similar to "capable of receiving broadcasts".
Therefore if there are live broadcast on the 'net, your system will be
capable of receiving then, and hence you theoretically need a licence.
Nonsense.
No, true.

The burden of proof is on you to show that the requisite plugins are not
installed etc etc.

The whole license system and legislation is possibly nonsense, but that
statement about the legal position is not.

Unless you have a stream of data containg a live TV program being fired at
your computer, and the software on your computer is decodng it, then your
computer in not capable of recieving live TV.


neglecting the execrable grammar, that is simply not true.

By that ruling, as long as I keep within a speed limit, my car is not
capable of exceeding it.

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Jan 12, 3:29 pm, "Toby" wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in ...



Yellow wrote:
"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:36:27 +0000, Stewart wrote:
Also useful...
"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.
The law uses the words similar to "capable of receiving broadcasts".
Therefore if there are live broadcast on the 'net, your system will be
capable of receiving then, and hence you theoretically need a licence.
Nonsense.
No, true.
The burden of proof is on you to show that the requisite plugins are not
installed etc etc.
The whole license system and legislation is possibly nonsense, but that
statement about the legal position is not.
Unless you have a stream of data containg a live TV program being fired at
your computer, and the software on your computer is decodng it, then your
computer in not capable of recieving live TV.

If your TV is turned off, it's not capable of receiving live TV. You
still need a license. Get the idea?


Exactly.

That definition has been tested in law sometime ago IIRC. people using
TVS PURELY fr computer monitors on their ataris etc, were advised to
fill the antenna socket with araldite etc, in order to show that they
were INCAPABLE of reception of off-air signals.


Assuming they were using RGB, and not some kind of PAL modulated carrier.

MBQ

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

That definition has been tested in law sometime ago IIRC. people using TVS
PURELY fr computer monitors on their ataris etc, were advised to fill the
antenna socket with araldite etc, in order to show that they were
INCAPABLE of reception of off-air signals.


Assuming they were using RGB, and not some kind of PAL modulated carrier.

Which most folks using ataris etc were. Most TVs only had aerial in.

Man at B&Q
wibbled on Tuesday 12 January 2010 15:39


If your TV is turned off, it's not capable of receiving live TV. You
still need a license. Get the idea?

MBQ

Not true - assuming it is *always* turned off it does not need a license.
It's not even necessary to disconnect it and put it in a cupboard, although
it helps your story should you be foolish enough to let an inspector in your
house.

I forget the edge case where you only use the TV for watching DVDs...

--
Tim Watts

Icicles - nature's way of pinpointing all the leaks in your guttering...

Yellow wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Yellow wrote:
"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:36:27 +0000, Stewart wrote:


Also useful...

"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.

The law uses the words similar to "capable of receiving broadcasts".
Therefore if there are live broadcast on the 'net, your system will be
capable of receiving then, and hence you theoretically need a licence.
Nonsense.
No, true.

Is so.

The burden of proof is on you to show that the requisite plugins are not
installed etc etc.

That is nonsense because any "out the box" computer will be able to
"receive" TV without additional software because a browser and flash is all
you need.

The whole license system and legislation is possibly nonsense, but that
statement about the legal position is not.

Lots of rubbish is written about whether or not you need a TV licence but if
you are not "watching live" TV, simply put, you do not.


That depends on whether you are relying on common sense, or the strict
letter of the law.

A computer with an internet connection and flash or moonlight installed
is, within the definition of the act 'apparatus capable of receiving
live TV or Radio'

You are relying on the fact that it is not its PRIMARY purpose, unlike,
say, a radio or TV set, as defence.

That has not been found to work well for people arrested for e.g.
carrying hunting knives to skin rabbits with, or even carving knives to
carve the sunday roast with.Or even baseball bats, allegedly to hit
balls with.

Tim W wrote:
Man at B&Q
wibbled on Tuesday 12 January 2010 15:39


If your TV is turned off, it's not capable of receiving live TV. You
still need a license. Get the idea?

MBQ

Not true - assuming it is *always* turned off it does not need a license.

No, but YOUR household does, since it contains the requisite apparatus.
The law is written or interptreted that way to forestall the situation
were the TV goes off the moment someone knocks on the front door.
Claiming you have a TV but never use it, is not considered sufficient
defence.

It's not even necessary to disconnect it and put it in a cupboard, although
it helps your story should you be foolish enough to let an inspector in your
house.

I forget the edge case where you only use the TV for watching DVDs...

The Natural Philosopher
wibbled on Tuesday 12 January 2010 16:40

Tim W wrote:
Man at B&Q
wibbled on Tuesday 12 January 2010 15:39


If your TV is turned off, it's not capable of receiving live TV. You
still need a license. Get the idea?

MBQ

Not true - assuming it is *always* turned off it does not need a license.

No, but YOUR household does, since it contains the requisite apparatus.
The law is written or interptreted that way to forestall the situation
were the TV goes off the moment someone knocks on the front door.
Claiming you have a TV but never use it, is not considered sufficient
defence.

pedant you knew what I meant...

Anyway...

The household does not need a license either under these conditions. Quote
from http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/

"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."

That's a surprisingly succinct statement, given who it's from. Now, we could
go back to the Act(s) itself, but if that's what TV Licensing say, I think
it's safe to assume that it's a currently accepted interpretation of the
Act(s) by the only people who have an interest in busting you or I.

Nothing there about installed (but not used to watch live TV) equipment or
stored equipment capable of doing the same. There is no need to be
aralditing your aerial inputs either.

It's not even necessary to disconnect it and put it in a cupboard,
although it helps your story should you be foolish enough to let an
inspector in your house.

I forget the edge case where you only use the TV for watching DVDs...


--
Tim Watts

Icicles - nature's way of pinpointing all the leaks in your guttering...

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

'Yes but I only watch iplayer delayed stiff'

That's be that downloaded pron?

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:36:27 +0000, Stewart wrote:


Also useful...

"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.


The law uses the words similar to "capable of receiving broadcasts".
Therefore if there are live broadcast on the 'net, your system will be
capable of receiving then, and hence you theoretically need a licence.


Not sure which law you are referring to, but the
The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004
includes
Definitions for the purposes of the Communications Act 2003 and the Wireless
Telegraphy Act 1967

Meaning of "television receiver"
9. - (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), "television
receiver" means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving
(whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television
programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other
purpose.

So it's clear that it's the *purpose* for the apparatus rather than the
*capability* that's important.

So, with respect, I think you are in error.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Yellow wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Yellow wrote:
"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:36:27 +0000, Stewart wrote:


Also useful...

"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.

The law uses the words similar to "capable of receiving broadcasts".
Therefore if there are live broadcast on the 'net, your system will be
capable of receiving then, and hence you theoretically need a licence.
Nonsense.
No, true.

Is so.

The burden of proof is on you to show that the requisite plugins are not
installed etc etc.

That is nonsense because any "out the box" computer will be able to
"receive" TV without additional software because a browser and flash is
all you need.

The whole license system and legislation is possibly nonsense, but that
statement about the legal position is not.

Lots of rubbish is written about whether or not you need a TV licence but
if you are not "watching live" TV, simply put, you do not.
That depends on whether you are relying on common sense, or the strict
letter of the law.

See my recent post (timed 19:19). The strict letter of the law is clear. Use
requires a licence, not capability.

A computer with an internet connection and flash or moonlight installed
is, within the definition of the act 'apparatus capable of receiving live
TV or Radio'

Irrelevant, as that is not in the Regulations.

You are relying on the fact that it is not its PRIMARY purpose, unlike,
say, a radio or TV set, as defence.

Doesn't matter - it's not important. If you don't *use* the capability to
watch or record 'as broadcast' programs, you don't need a licence

That has not been found to work well for people arrested for e.g. carrying
hunting knives to skin rabbits with, or even carving knives to carve the
sunday roast with.Or even baseball bats, allegedly to hit balls with.

Irrelevant.

However, I have heard that Sweden is introducing a licencing system on the
lines of what you think applies here.

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:19:47 -0000, "OG"
wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:36:27 +0000, Stewart wrote:


Also useful...

"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.


The law uses the words similar to "capable of receiving broadcasts".
Therefore if there are live broadcast on the 'net, your system will be
capable of receiving then, and hence you theoretically need a licence.


Not sure which law you are referring to, but the
The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004
includes
Definitions for the purposes of the Communications Act 2003 and the Wireless
Telegraphy Act 1967

Meaning of "television receiver"
9. - (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), "television
receiver" means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving
(whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television
programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other
purpose.

So it's clear that it's the *purpose* for the apparatus rather than the
*capability* that's important.

So, with respect, I think you are in error.


Last September I wrote to TV licensing and informed them that I would
not be renewing my licence.
I asked if there was a requirement to place my tv "somwhere" in the
house.

I received a reply from them saying that I would get a visit from then
in the future and after that I would not be contacted for three years.
No visiit yet.
I use the tv for PS2 and DVD


Mike P

ARWadsworth
wibbled on Tuesday 12 January 2010 20:33


But why do the TVLA think that they have got the right to ask you to prove
your innocence?

They think they are the New Staasi.

I think they are a bunch of cnuts.

I suppose it's fair. I did tell them what I thought of them in writing. They
didn't proceed to hang me upside down by my testicles and use me as a dart
board, so I suppose they can't be that Nazi after all.



--
Tim Watts

Icicles - nature's way of pinpointing all the leaks in your guttering...

Stewart wrote:
I have no TV but watch the news, weather etc on computer as well as using
bbc iplayer.
I regularly get a notice from the licencing authority telling me that if I
have a receiver (including computer) that can receive "live" tv then I must
buy a licence.

I suspect this refers to TV cards in the computer. Being able simply to access
the Internet does not require a TV licence.

Now I have tried several things to see what is "live".
My digital radio plays the same programme slightly later than my FM radio so
the digital radio cannot be "live".

That *is* live. Just because there is an encoding delay, that does not make it
any less "live".

I was in away at New Year and both watched and listened to the Vienna New
Year concert, it was "live" on FM radio, slightly later on digital radio and
later still on TV so that was not "live",

Sorry - live again.

The news and weather from bbc on the computer are also later than those on a
tv.

Live.

Does anyone know what "live" really means?

Not recorded and broadcast at a substantially later time.

Fredxx wrote:
"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:36:27 +0000, Stewart wrote:


Also useful...

"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.


The law uses the words similar to "capable of receiving broadcasts".
Therefore if there are live broadcast on the 'net, your system will be
capable of receiving then, and hence you theoretically need a licence.

That is multicast - not strictly broadcast.

Man at B&Q wrote:

If your TV is turned off, it's not capable of receiving live TV. You
still need a license. Get the idea?

Nope. If the TV is in the shed or the attic, then it is just a box of electronic
gizmos. You don't need a licence just to *own* a TV.

The operative word used to be "install", which means plugging it in and
connecting an antenna.

-- JJ

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If your TV is turned off, it's not capable of receiving live TV. You
still need a license. Get the idea?


Exactly.

That definition has been tested in law sometime ago IIRC. people using
TVS PURELY fr computer monitors on their ataris etc, were advised to
fill the antenna socket with araldite etc, in order to show that they
were INCAPABLE of reception of off-air signals.

That would not be enough. I used to work in a TV repair shop in the '80s. We
were required to modify the tuning circuitry so that it would only tune into
channel 36. That way it cannot be tuned to any other channel, regardless of
whether there was an antenna plugged in or not.

-- JJ

Tim W wrote:
Man at B&Q
wibbled on Tuesday 12 January 2010 15:39


If your TV is turned off, it's not capable of receiving live TV. You
still need a license. Get the idea?

MBQ

Not true - assuming it is *always* turned off it does not need a license.
It's not even necessary to disconnect it and put it in a cupboard, although
it helps your story should you be foolish enough to let an inspector in your
house.

I forget the edge case where you only use the TV for watching DVDs...

The trouble is, even watching through a SCART cable only, the receiver is still
operating in the background and you an still be done for it if you don't have a
licence. You need to disconnect the tuner internally.

-- JJ

Jason
wibbled on Tuesday 12 January 2010 22:13

Man at B&Q wrote:

If your TV is turned off, it's not capable of receiving live TV. You
still need a license. Get the idea?

Nope. If the TV is in the shed or the attic, then it is just a box of
electronic
gizmos. You don't need a licence just to *own* a TV.

The operative word used to be "install", which means plugging it in and
connecting an antenna.

-- JJ

The operative word seemed to be "watch" when I read the statement on TV
Licensing's website.

--
Tim Watts

Icicles - nature's way of pinpointing all the leaks in your guttering...

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
yes, but...
consider the wording above. In a legal context. How do you establish
whether or not some maughty person has been watching TV, without a license.

You catch them doing it. If you don't catch them, then you can't do anything.
It's much the same with most laws.

-- JJ

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim W wrote:
Man at B&Q
wibbled on Tuesday 12 January 2010 15:39


If your TV is turned off, it's not capable of receiving live TV. You
still need a license. Get the idea?

MBQ

Not true - assuming it is *always* turned off it does not need a license.

No, but YOUR household does, since it contains the requisite apparatus.


If you take that view then I am a rapist as "I have the ready apparatus" to
commit a crime.

Adam

Mike wrote:

I use the tv for PS2 and DVD

Just be careful. If the tuner is still operating (and it is likely to be doing
so) when playing, then they can detect that and you will be up in court.

-- JJ

"Jason" wrote in message
...
Mike wrote:

I use the tv for PS2 and DVD

Just be careful. If the tuner is still operating (and it is likely to be
doing
so) when playing, then they can detect that and you will be up in court.

-- JJ

Detect what and how?

Adam

Wow, I never expected so many replies. From what you all say then if I
watch the news or weather on my computer I had better get myself a licence.
Thankfully I am almost 75 so then I think it will be free.


"Jason" wrote in message
...
Stewart wrote:
I have no TV but watch the news, weather etc on computer as well as using
bbc iplayer.
I regularly get a notice from the licencing authority telling me that if
I
have a receiver (including computer) that can receive "live" tv then I
must
buy a licence.

I suspect this refers to TV cards in the computer. Being able simply to
access
the Internet does not require a TV licence.

Now I have tried several things to see what is "live".
My digital radio plays the same programme slightly later than my FM radio
so
the digital radio cannot be "live".

That *is* live. Just because there is an encoding delay, that does not
make it
any less "live".

I was in away at New Year and both watched and listened to the Vienna New
Year concert, it was "live" on FM radio, slightly later on digital radio
and
later still on TV so that was not "live",

Sorry - live again.

The news and weather from bbc on the computer are also later than those
on a
tv.

Live.

Does anyone know what "live" really means?

Not recorded and broadcast at a substantially later time.

"Jason" wrote in message
...
Mike wrote:

I use the tv for PS2 and DVD

Just be careful. If the tuner is still operating (and it is likely to be
doing
so) when playing, then they can detect that and you will be up in court.

-- JJ

Irrelevant if you're not using it to watch (or record) a broadcast. Didn't
you read my post?

"Jason" wrote in message
...
Tim W wrote:
Man at B&Q
wibbled on Tuesday 12 January 2010 15:39


If your TV is turned off, it's not capable of receiving live TV. You
still need a license. Get the idea?

MBQ

Not true - assuming it is *always* turned off it does not need a license.
It's not even necessary to disconnect it and put it in a cupboard,
although
it helps your story should you be foolish enough to let an inspector in
your
house.

I forget the edge case where you only use the TV for watching DVDs...

The trouble is, even watching through a SCART cable only, the receiver is
still
operating in the background and you an still be done for it if you don't
have a
licence. You need to disconnect the tuner internally.


Wrong.

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:14:55 +0000, Jason
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If your TV is turned off, it's not capable of receiving live TV. You
still need a license. Get the idea?


Exactly.

That definition has been tested in law sometime ago IIRC. people using
TVS PURELY fr computer monitors on their ataris etc, were advised to
fill the antenna socket with araldite etc, in order to show that they
were INCAPABLE of reception of off-air signals.

That would not be enough. I used to work in a TV repair shop in the '80s. We
were required to modify the tuning circuitry so that it would only tune into
channel 36. That way it cannot be tuned to any other channel, regardless of
whether there was an antenna plugged in or not.

In the end it isn't up to the TVLA to decide whether or not you've
been watching TV without a licence - it's for the magistrates' court
to convict or dismiss, after TVLA have produced their 'evidence'.
Such 'evidence' _may_ consist largely of a likelihood of use (cf.
availability), but as I said it's up to the JPs to decide who's
telling the truth.

--
Frank Erskine

"Stewart" wrote in message
...
Wow, I never expected so many replies.


From what you all say then if I watch the news or weather on my computer I
had better get myself a licence.

If you watch a BBC iPlayer programme that is live there will be a statement
on the page that tells you that you need a TV licence.


Does anyone know why the blind have to pay more for a colour TV licence than
a black and white TV licence?

TV Licensing charges the blind £71.25 a year to use a colour TV and £24 a
year to use a B&W TV

Adam.

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:16:37 +0000, Tim W wrote:

Jason
wibbled on Tuesday 12 January 2010 22:13

Man at B&Q wrote:

If your TV is turned off, it's not capable of receiving live TV. You
still need a license. Get the idea?

Nope. If the TV is in the shed or the attic, then it is just a box of
electronic
gizmos. You don't need a licence just to *own* a TV.

The operative word used to be "install", which means plugging it in and
connecting an antenna.

-- JJ

The operative word seemed to be "watch" when I read the statement on TV
Licensing's website.

I'm not familiar with the currently used Communications Act, but I
should imagine that in this context the definitions etc of the older
Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1949 will still largely apply:-

"No person shall establish or use any station for wireless telegraphy
or install or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy except under
the authority of a licence in that behalf..."

The word 'establish' used here is very vague and has apparently never
been legally defined - I suppose case law could provide some sort of
definition if anyone could be ar$ed to try!.

Obviously since 1949 technology has changed vastly and 'apparatus for
wireless telegraphy' itself clearly isn't what it was in the days of
crystal sets, 0-v-1superregens, superhets and so on, so 'establish'
and even 'install' are even more complicated, in these days of mobile
phone/TVs, cable TV (which isn't even wireless!) and so on.

--
Frank Erskine