 |
|
| UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
OT : TV licensing - must I compy?
On 22 Dec 2004, Kalico wrote
For about the past year or so I have been receiving increasingly threatening letters from the TV licensing people about the fact I do not have a license. I'm not too fussed about buying one since I do not use the TV for anything other than watching the occasional video. Indeed, there is no TV in the main living room and no aerial lead on the TV that is upstairs. You need a licence if you "install *or* use" (my emphasis) equipment which can receive broadcast programme services. That includes not only the tuner inside your telly, but also the tuner inside your video; it would also include a PC card, which is another "tuner". In other words, if you've *installed* a TV -- or a video machine -- you need a licence for it. The only exception I've heard of is if you can demonstratae that its capability for receiving programmes has been disabled (and probably permanently disabled, by removing the tuner and turning it into a monitor). Basically, you need a licence for having the machines in your house -- regardless of whether or not you use them to watch broadcasts. -- Cheers, Harvey |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
You need a licence if you "install *or* use" (my emphasis) equipment which can receive broadcast programme services. That includes not only the tuner inside your telly, but also the tuner inside your video; it would also include a PC card, which is another "tuner". I don't believe this is true. It is what the TV Licensing often tell you, but that doesn't make it true. -- Grunff |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 22 Dec 2004, Grunff wrote
Harvey Van Sickle wrote: You need a licence if you "install *or* use" (my emphasis) equipment which can receive broadcast programme services. That includes not only the tuner inside your telly, but also the tuner inside your video; it would also include a PC card, which is another "tuner". I don't believe this is true. It is what the TV Licensing often tell you, but that doesn't make it true. Well, that's what it states on the back of the licence itself, in writing: You need a TV licence to install or use any equipment to receive television programme services -- for example a television set, video recorder, set-top box, PC with a broadcast card or any other TV receiving equipment. So if it's an illegal statement, they're doing it in writing -- which strikes me as unlikely, as I'd have thought it would have been challenged in court by now. -- Cheers, Harvey |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
Well, that's what it states on the back of the licence itself, in writing: You need a TV licence to install or use any equipment to receive television programme services -- for example a television set, video recorder, set-top box, PC with a broadcast card or any other TV receiving equipment. So if it's an illegal statement, they're doing it in writing -- which strikes me as unlikely, as I'd have thought it would have been challenged in court by now. Now you made me go and look it up! http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/nw/index/your_world/communications/television_licences.htm#who See the section entitled "You do not use your television set or video recorder to watch or record authorised broadcast programmes". -- Grunff |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
I believe the journalist Jonathan Miller is waging a war against the TV
Licencing people. His website is: http://www.tvlicensing.biz The key info you are after is at: http://www.tvlicensing.biz/info_on_t...sing/index.htm To summarise: You do NOT need a TV Licence for owning any kind of TV receiver/VCR/Satellite receiver/PC with TV-TCard [PC/TV] etc. When you only use a TV for: - playing video games - watch pre-recorded videos [VCR/DVD]* - closed circuit monitoring [CCD] - displaying -for example- presentations using your PC Then "again" you do NOT need a TV licence. There is loads more advice on the website on dealing with those nasty licencing people and their threatening letters! Hope this helps |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Grunff" wrote in message ... Harvey Van Sickle wrote: Well, that's what it states on the back of the licence itself, in writing: You need a TV licence to install or use any equipment to receive television programme services -- for example a television set, video recorder, set-top box, PC with a broadcast card or any other TV receiving equipment. So if it's an illegal statement, they're doing it in writing -- which strikes me as unlikely, as I'd have thought it would have been challenged in court by now. Now you made me go and look it up! http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/nw/index/your_world/communications/television_licences.htm#who See the section entitled "You do not use your television set or video recorder to watch or record authorised broadcast programmes". Interesting. "... the television set and/or video recorder must be incapable of receiving all authorised broadcast programmes. This could be done, for example, by making sure that neither the television set nor the video recorder are tuned into any channels and ensuring that they are not connected to an aerial." I'd be fascinated to know what would happen if the inspectors came 'round and someone used this line on them. My TVs aren't tuned into any channels and aren't connected to aerials, because I have cable boxes. Theoretically I could just hide the cable boxes and this would make me "acceptable". Al |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 22 Dec 2004, Grunff wrote
Harvey Van Sickle wrote: Well, that's what it states on the back of the licence itself, in writing: You need a TV licence to install or use any equipment to receive television programme services -- for example a television set, video recorder, set-top box, PC with a broadcast card or any other TV receiving equipment. So if it's an illegal statement, they're doing it in writing -- which strikes me as unlikely, as I'd have thought it would have been challenged in court by now. Now you made me go and look it up! http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/nw/ind...munications/te levision_licences.htm#who See the section entitled "You do not use your television set or video recorder to watch or record authorised broadcast programmes". Yeah, that's the bit -- it states (as I mentioned in my first post) that you can get around it by showing that the TV is "incapable of receiving" broadcasts: However, the television set and/or video recorder must be incapable of receiving all authorised broadcast programmes. This could be done, for example, by making sure that neither the television set nor the video recorder are tuned into any channels and ensuring that they are not connected to an aerial. I take that to mean that it wouldn't be enough just to have no aerial connection: the TV -- and the video -- cannot even be tuned to pick up a signal. (FWIW I wouldn't be surprised if -- to qualify under that exemption -- you had to show that the tuning mechanism was inaccessible or otherwise disabled in some way.) -- Cheers, Harvey |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm with Harvey on this.
When I read up on this some time ago, it was clear that you could only use a TV or Video without a licence if it was INCAPABLE of recieving (permanently). Just stating that you don't use it to recieve is not enough. -- Tony Collins "Harvey Van Sickle" wrote in message ... On 22 Dec 2004, Kalico wrote For about the past year or so I have been receiving increasingly threatening letters from the TV licensing people about the fact I do not have a license. I'm not too fussed about buying one since I do not use the TV for anything other than watching the occasional video. Indeed, there is no TV in the main living room and no aerial lead on the TV that is upstairs. You need a licence if you "install *or* use" (my emphasis) equipment which can receive broadcast programme services. That includes not only the tuner inside your telly, but also the tuner inside your video; it would also include a PC card, which is another "tuner". In other words, if you've *installed* a TV -- or a video machine -- you need a licence for it. The only exception I've heard of is if you can demonstratae that its capability for receiving programmes has been disabled (and probably permanently disabled, by removing the tuner and turning it into a monitor). Basically, you need a licence for having the machines in your house -- regardless of whether or not you use them to watch broadcasts. -- Cheers, Harvey |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 22 Dec 2004, wrote
I believe the journalist Jonathan Miller is waging a war against the TV Licencing people. His website is: http://www.tvlicensing.biz The key info you are after is at: http://www.tvlicensing.biz/info_on_t...sing/index.htm To summarise: You do NOT need a TV Licence for owning any kind of TV receiver/VCR/Satellite receiver/PC with TV-TCard [PC/TV] etc. When you only use a TV for: - playing video games - watch pre-recorded videos [VCR/DVD]* - closed circuit monitoring [CCD] - displaying -for example- presentations using your PC Then "again" you do NOT need a TV licence. That's true, but I think it's been established that you have to show that the TV's ability to receive programmes has been disabled -- not just that you state "I don't use it for that purpose". -- Cheers, Harvey |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:04:49 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
wrote: [snip] Basically, you need a licence for having the machines in your house -- regardless of whether or not you use them to watch broadcasts. Surely that cannot be the case. What if it was never turned on? I cannot think you would need a license for just possessing a TV or video. I rang the TV peeps and spoke to a guy who must surely be the only person to work for them who does not have a TV license. He said that the practicalities of removing the receiving bit could not be expected from people. What he said he had done was to shove a wine bottle cork over the aerial input and tape it round with lots of PVC tape. He said any inspector would easily conclude that he was not receiving broadcast TV pictures. BUT, he had made the declaration that he did not need a TV license and he suggested I did the same. Of course, one of the reasons for making SORN declarations compulsory was that if the vehicle is subsequently found on the road, the owner cannot deny that he knew it should not be there. That's why I wanted to know if I MUST make a declaration that I do not need a license, or if the onus is on them to prove things one way or the other. Rob Replace 'spam' with 'org' to reply |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 22 Dec 2004, Steve Firth wrote
Harvey Van Sickle wrote: Well, that's what it states on the back of the licence itself, in writing: You need a TV licence to install or use any equipment to receive television programme services -- for example a television set, video recorder, set-top box, PC with a broadcast card or any other TV receiving equipment. So if it's an illegal statement, they're doing it in writing -- which strikes me as unlikely, as I'd have thought it would have been challenged in court by now. The statement is legal, you're just not reading it correctly. You do not need a licence to install or use equipment ( such as a TV or video recorder). You need a licence to install or use any equipment to receive television programme services. Spot the difference? It's not an issue of whether the equipment is capable of receiving television broadcast, it's one of whether the equipment is used to receive broadcasts. Oh, yes; I'm well aware of that. It's why in my first post I mentioned that people have been exempted from licencing for non- broadcast use -- but AFAIK only by showing that the receiving capability had been disabled. I'd be interested to hear of cases where someone has got off on the basis that "The equipment is broadcast-ready, but I don't use it for that purpose"? My suspicion is that one's word would not be enough to carry the day in a legal challenge -- some sort of physical evidence of disabled receiving capability would need to be shown -- but I'm happy to be proven wrong if a legal precedent can be pointed to. -- Cheers, Harvey |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tony Collins wrote:
I'm with Harvey on this. When I read up on this some time ago, it was clear that you could only use a TV or Video without a licence if it was INCAPABLE of recieving (permanently). Just stating that you don't use it to recieve is not enough. What about the line "However, the television set and/or video recorder must be incapable of receiving all authorised broadcast programmes. This could be done, for example, by making sure that neither the television set nor the video recorder are tuned into any channels and ensuring that they are not connected to an aerial."? -- Grunff |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Now you made me go and look it up!
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/nw/index/your_world/communications/television_licences.htm#who See the section entitled "You do not use your television set or video recorder to watch or record authorised broadcast programmes". -- Grunf You can find this on the tv licence website. Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/informa...sses.jsp#link5 If you don't use any equipment to receive or record TV programmes, you do not need a licence. But we still need to hear from you. This is also the case if you use TV sets for closed circuit monitoring, as a computer monitor or watching pre-recorded videos only - for example, for training purposes. You must let us know so that we can update our records to reflect your status. This will ensure that we do not continue to contact you unnecessarily. We may need to confirm your situation by visiting your premises. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
That's true, but I think it's been established that you have to show that the TV's ability to receive programmes has been disabled -- not just that you state "I don't use it for that purpose". How has this been established, and by whom? -- Grunff |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 22 Dec 2004, Grunff wrote
Harvey Van Sickle wrote: That's true, but I think it's been established that you have to show that the TV's ability to receive programmes has been disabled -- not just that you state "I don't use it for that purpose". How has this been established, and by whom? I said "I think" it's been established.  My reason for thinking that, is that if it *had* been established that a simple declaration of intent satisfied the legal requirement for "non-receipt of broadcasts", one of two things would have happened: either it would be a fairly widely-known and simple way of getting around the licence fee; or (more likely) the law would have been changed to require evidence. Like I've said elsethread, I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I don't think (there's that word again) that a simple "Take my word for it -- I never use the thing" would be sufficient to carry the day if one was prosecuted for not having a licence. -- Cheers, Harvey |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:50:02 -0000, "Tony Collins" reply_to_group
wrote: I'm with Harvey on this. When I read up on this some time ago, it was clear that you could only use a TV or Video without a licence if it was INCAPABLE of recieving (permanently). Just stating that you don't use it to recieve is not enough. Not what the guy at TV licensing told me although you are right that just 'stating' that you do not use it for broadcasts is not enough. BUT, he did say that the TV/VCR did not have to have all the appropriate circuitry removed. Rob Replace 'spam' with 'org' to reply |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 22 Dec 2004, Kalico wrote
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:50:02 -0000, "Tony Collins" reply_to_group wrote: I'm with Harvey on this. When I read up on this some time ago, it was clear that you could only use a TV or Video without a licence if it was INCAPABLE of recieving (permanently). Just stating that you don't use it to recieve is not enough. Not what the guy at TV licensing told me although you are right that just 'stating' that you do not use it for broadcasts is not enough. BUT, he did say that the TV/VCR did not have to have all the appropriate circuitry removed. I don't think that's what either of us were saying -- it doesn't have to be removed, but the equipment's receiving capability *does* have to be shown to be "disabled" in some way. Further, I suspect -- although I can't say for certain -- that one would need to show that the "disablement" was permanent or virtually permanent, rather than easily re-enabled. -- Cheers, Harvey |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
Like I've said elsethread, I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I don't think (there's that word again) that a simple "Take my word for it -- I never use the thing" would be sufficient to carry the day if one was prosecuted for not having a licence. Look at it this way. Say I want to buy a TV to use with my PS2. That's all I ever want to use it for. Why on earth should I be penalised for this, by being forced to 'prove' that this is all I want to use it for? That's like saying that when I buy a kitchen knife I have to prove that I'm not going to use it to kill anyone! -- Grunff |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 22 Dec 2004, Grunff wrote
Harvey Van Sickle wrote: Like I've said elsethread, I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I don't think (there's that word again) that a simple "Take my word for it -- I never use the thing" would be sufficient to carry the day if one was prosecuted for not having a licence. Look at it this way. Say I want to buy a TV to use with my PS2. That's all I ever want to use it for. Why on earth should I be penalised for this, by being forced to 'prove' that this is all I want to use it for? That's like saying that when I buy a kitchen knife I have to prove that I'm not going to use it to kill anyone! I agree entirely with you that the "PS2" situation seems unfair; but as I understand it, the sorry fact of life is that your statement of intent simply isn't enough to satisfy the legal niceties. Whether it's fair or not, I think it's been established that one has to provide some sort of evidence that this is all you are using it for. And the accepted way of providing that evidence is to show that the equipment is incapable of being used to view broadcast programmes. -- Cheers, Harvey |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Kalico wrote: Basically, you need a licence for having the machines in your house -- regardless of whether or not you use them to watch broadcasts. Surely that cannot be the case. What if it was never turned on? I cannot think you would need a license for just possessing a TV or video. Think a reasonable question would be 'why would you have a TV in a room in your house if you *never* used it?' I think in the end the individual magistrate will decide whether you genuinely *never* watch off air progs, and only videos. And the presence of an aerial or not doesn't mean much - an indoor type could just be unplugged and put away. The chances of someone owning a TV and *never* watching off air are remote. -- *The hardness of the butter is proportional to the softness of the bread * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
My suspicion is that one's word would not be enough to carry the day in a legal challenge -- some sort of physical evidence of disabled receiving capability would need to be shown -- but I'm happy to be proven wrong if a legal precedent can be pointed to. Given that our legal system still loosly clings to the ideal of "innocent until proven guilty", one might expect that it would be up to the authorities to prove that you were using it in violation of the licensing terms, not that you could if you wanted. cf. You have a car that can exceed 70 mph, therefore you are nicked for speeding. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:05:14 -0000, "asdfasdf" wrote:
snip] You must let us know so that we can update our records to reflect your status. This will ensure that we do not continue to contact you unnecessarily. We may need to confirm your situation by visiting your premises. But that does not say it is a criminal offence not to let them know. Replace 'spam' with 'org' to reply |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:48:50 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
wrote: Yup -- that's what I said in my first post (it was snipped further down the thread, so you may not have seen the comment): that the only exemptions I've heard of have been where people have shown that it "can't be used to receive broadcasts". Fine, but if they are saying on their own web site that simply not having the tuner tuned to any channels or with no antenna is a way of demonstrating that, then they can hardly say that more needs to be done afterwards. -- ..andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:26:11 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
wrote: [snip] Further, I suspect -- although I can't say for certain -- that one would need to show that the "disablement" was permanent or virtually permanent, rather than easily re-enabled. Yes, that's what the TV licensing chap said. Hence why he said he had put half a reel of PVC tape over the antenna input on his TV and VCR. Seems that using a detector van can pick out which channel is being viewed. They can pick it up from the aerial on the roof, though I cannot see it being so accurate as to be able to discern my aerial from my neighbour's, three storeys up. But there is virtually no chance of detecting a TV that does not have the aerial lead connected. Rob Replace 'spam' with 'org' to reply |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:32:01 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
wrote: On 22 Dec 2004, Grunff wrote Harvey Van Sickle wrote: Like I've said elsethread, I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I don't think (there's that word again) that a simple "Take my word for it -- I never use the thing" would be sufficient to carry the day if one was prosecuted for not having a licence. Look at it this way. Say I want to buy a TV to use with my PS2. That's all I ever want to use it for. Why on earth should I be penalised for this, by being forced to 'prove' that this is all I want to use it for? That's like saying that when I buy a kitchen knife I have to prove that I'm not going to use it to kill anyone! I agree entirely with you that the "PS2" situation seems unfair; but as I understand it, the sorry fact of life is that your statement of intent simply isn't enough to satisfy the legal niceties. Whether it's fair or not, I think it's been established that one has to provide some sort of evidence that this is all you are using it for. And the accepted way of providing that evidence is to show that the equipment is incapable of being used to view broadcast programmes. But if you don't have to let the inspector in without a warrant ........ Replace 'spam' with 'org' to reply |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 22 Dec 2004, John Rumm wrote
Harvey Van Sickle wrote: My suspicion is that one's word would not be enough to carry the day in a legal challenge -- some sort of physical evidence of disabled receiving capability would need to be shown -- but I'm happy to be proven wrong if a legal precedent can be pointed to. Given that our legal system still loosly clings to the ideal of "innocent until proven guilty", one might expect that it would be up to the authorities to prove that you were using it in violation of the licensing terms, not that you could if you wanted. One might expect that, but I think one would be expecting too much. cf. You have a car that can exceed 70 mph, therefore you are nicked for speeding. There are, sadly, many cases where one is required to prove that one didn't do something. (For example, I think it's still the case that if a car registered in your name is caught by a speed camera, the onus is on you to prove that you weren't driving it at the time of the offence, rather than on the police to prove that you *were* driving it.) -- Cheers, Harvey |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 22 Dec 2004, Kalico wrote
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:32:01 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle wrote: -snip- Whether it's fair or not, I think it's been established that one has to provide some sort of evidence that this is all you are using it for. And the accepted way of providing that evidence is to show that the equipment is incapable of being used to view broadcast programmes. But if you don't have to let the inspector in without a warrant ....... Oh, absolutely. Interestingly, that's even stated in black and white on the back of the licence: Our officers may ask to inspect your licence and television equipmenet at any time, but you do not have to let them into your home without a search warrant. -- Cheers, Harvey |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
John Rumm wrote: Given that our legal system still loosly clings to the ideal of "innocent until proven guilty", one might expect that it would be up to the authorities to prove that you were using it in violation of the licensing terms, not that you could if you wanted. cf. You have a car that can exceed 70 mph, therefore you are nicked for speeding. But with a car you have to register it as not in use and off road otherwise pay the tax. -- *If a parsley farmer is sued, can they garnish his wages? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kalico wrote:
For about the past year or so I have been receiving increasingly threatening letters from the TV licensing people about the fact I do not have a license. This topic is an old chestnut in uk.legal (or is it u.l.moderated?) I gather that if you do ever manage to convince the buggers that you don't have a TV, the absence of ever-more-threatening letters is only abated for a relatively brief period, then they assume that the 'status' will have changed, and the whole sorry saga starts again. Somebody on u.l. who was well-experienced with dealing with these people (and who seemed to know what they were talking about) was proferring the advice that not only should you never invite them in to see the absence of a TV, but that it was vital not to even speak to them - just shut the door on them. Have to say I didn't quite see the relevance or significance of that! On a different tack... when I was doing a house conversion recently, I had to set up a completely new address via the local council, who then registered it with Royal Mail's postcode database. It took no more than a few weeks before I started getting TV license letters at the address (despite the fact that it was no more than a building site). One thing that particularly hacks me off is that they invite you to to contact them in the event you don't have a TV, but expect you to cover the cost of writing or phoning. (So I didn't; they went in to the skip by the acore). David |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kalico wrote:
But there is virtually no chance of detecting a TV that does not have the aerial lead connected. There is a big difference between what can be done, and what actualy is. Go and do a web search for "Tempest enclosures" - i.e. the sort of kit used to keep spooks from evesdropping on your video / computer screens etc. The linescan output, and that of the local oscilators in a typical TV demodulating circuit are all easily detected with the right kit. Not only that, but the nature of the signals makes them quite conspicous. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Rumm wrote:
But there is virtually no chance of detecting a TV that does not have the aerial lead connected. FSVO "no" such as "quite a high" :-). AIUI the detector vans have been / are being replaced by hand-held TV detectors, the operating principle of which seems to be a closely guarded secret in the Beeb - but BBC R&D at Kingswood had a hand in the development, so it could be something quite advanced. The linescan output, and that of the local oscilators in a typical TV demodulating circuit are all easily detected with the right kit. Not only that, but the nature of the signals makes them quite conspicous. Line scan was used by the original detectors[1] in the 50s, replaced by LO radiation in the later vans. If they've gone back to line scan 'radiation' (pedants read "induction field") it might make it quite harder to find non-CRT displays, which are becoming very common. http://www.jifvik.org/tv/ also makes interesting reading on the subject generally. [1] "Detector: Post Office official equipped with clever apparatus which responds to the absence of licence." M. G. Scroggie (writing as 'Cathode Ray') in Wireless World in 1950-something. -- Andy |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rob Morley wrote:
As the registered keeper, you are responsible for the car - if it wasn't you driving you should know who was. And also in this case, there *is* proof that an offence was commited. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
You need a licence if you "install *or* use" (my emphasis) equipment which can receive broadcast programme services. But by being detuned and without an aerial lead it *cannot* receive broadcast programme services! |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 22 Dec 2004, Andy Burns wrote
Harvey Van Sickle wrote: You need a licence if you "install *or* use" (my emphasis) equipment which can receive broadcast programme services. But by being detuned and without an aerial lead it *cannot* receive broadcast programme services! I did, in fact, acknowledge that in the paragraph which everybody seems to have snipped from my original post: In other words, if you've *installed* a TV -- or a video machine -- you need a licence for it. The only exception I've heard of is if you can demonstratae that its capability for receiving programmes has been disabled (and probably permanently disabled, by removing the tuner and turning it into a monitor). I still suspect that simple de-tuning and not connecting an aerial would be regularly challenged by the licencing people -- "Our officers would like to check that your untuned TV receiver has remained untuned". So the easiest way to "prove" disablement would be to permanently disable the tuner in some way. -- Cheers, Harvey |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Ready to start licensing your tools? | Home Repair | |||
Linear Mode
