Talk:Television licensing in the United Kingdom/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Broadcast" and "live transmission"

I have changed "Broadcast" throughout to "transmit", "transmission, etc. because by definition the signal need not be broadcast. Obviously not changed in names (BBC etc) and references.

However I think we have a problem here with "live transmission", not totally my own fault here, it was there before my edit. In that it may be take to mean a transmission of an event as it occurs, whereas what is meant in the sense of the Act is that it is received reasonably instantaneously from when it was transmitted (within the bounds of the speed of light, codecs, etc). So, a recorded programme that is later transmitted is still a "live transmission" in the sense we mean here, but perhaps using the word "live" is ambiguous. I can think of no better that is concise, without having to go round the houses all the time. I was tempted with "simultaneous" but that seems even worse. Any ideas? Si Trew (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Currently the signal does need to be broadcast and it's best to stick with the definitions used in the relevant law. The Communications Act 2003 doesn't help by defining receiving as "References in this Part to using a television receiver are references to using it for receiving television programmes." That gets updated here http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20040692.htm to bring in the 'as broadcast' language-

(2) In this regulation, any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service.

But then 'television programme service' also has meaning in the Communications Act, essentially being standard broadcast TV. The BBC as the Authority has deemed it to be 'as broadcast' to TV sets as well in it's TVL statements. But basically the law is a bit of a mess. Issues are whether live transmissions via the Internet count as television programme services, especially if they're Internet only services. Those are unicast rather than broadcast, and IPTV is something of a grey area.81.130.208.8 (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The myth of Detector Vans exposed

This site hammers the final nails in the coffin of the 50 year old lie. It is very well researched. http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Detector%20vans.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.30.14.105 (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently cos I don't watch TV I don't need one

I just phoned TV Licensing and I was told catgeorically I do not need a TV license because I don't watch TV. Merely possessing a set is not enough. I do not need a TV license if I don't watch it. I will get written confirmation of this in a couple of days and update the page when I do. But it seems they are taking a common sensical view about it a little more than they used to. Si Trew (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

TV Licensing Documents

Some references linking to Freedom of Information Requests containing BBC Procedure Documents on the BBC site no longer contain the documents. Is it better to link to similar documents on the WhatDoTheyKnow web site that also contains more BBC procedures in connection with TV Licensing?

See RFI20080836: BBC Policy on the Authorisation and Operation of Detection Equipment under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000

See: RFI20080690: TV LICENSING VISITING PROCEDURES

See: RFI20091098 Service Provision Agreement for the Management of the Enforcement, Collection and Administration of the Licence Fee

See also on House of Commons web site: House of Commons Standard Note: SN/HA/1148 Television Licence Checks Last updated: 19 June 2009. This itself contains more sources of information.

Cookieonwiki (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a random comment from a passerby here, agreeing with the above. The links to BBC PDFs are broken in many if not all cases. The referenced FOI documents deserve a permanent home somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.96.215 (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

At least part of the information referenced by the deadlink "BBC response to Freedom of Information Request, 25/08/2006" can be found in RFI20100381 & 0435 as found at http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/foi/classes/disclosure_logs/rfi20100381_using_tvset_not_live_broadcasts.pdf 212.139.210.164 (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Apportioning of the fee to the BBC

There does not seem to be a reference anywhere about how much of the gross fee collected through the Licence Fee system actually goes to the BBC to be divided up among its own responsibilities.

Even the BBC website seems mute on this detail. 213.123.181.240 (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Watching TV on the internet

According to TV Licensing Web Site (Click if you need one tab) right off the home page.

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.

Is it okay to Watch Live TV on the Internet from stations that do not broadcast into the UK?

Cookieonwiki (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

you can watch any non-bbc station that legally broadcasts over the internet for free. the bbc world services are paid for by government and don't need you to pay again (you pay tax) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.139.131 (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

False. It's any UK broadcast, not just BBC ones that you need a TV Licence for. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are watching internet TV of UK live broadcasts when outside the UK (i.e. in your villa in Spain or in a beachside bar in Thailand), you don't need a TV licence, because you are outside UK legal jurisdiction - there is no universal (i.e. "global"; or intergalactic) jurisdiction applicable to the TV licensing legislation; certainly no legal precedent has been set for prosecuting anyone based on their IP address being logged as receiving a service; however, the technical difficulties in viewing broadcasts from a foreign IP, mean that the companies that provide such services would have to have internet access within the country in order to obtain the data to transmit by proxy to their clients; as such, they may not wish to face prosecution for aiding and abetting. So, if you are able to conjure up a way of receiving the broadcast from the UK, then you are free to watch it; but you would need some expertise and resources to achieve that - and it may not be worth the effort really.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.19.155 (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Will you similarly be going out of your way to point out something equally obvious, such as not having to pay UK taxes if you don't live and/or earn in the UK? Clearly the issue being discussed here is the need (or not) for a licnce within the UK. You need a licence to watch UK-licensed channels, not just BBC ones. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well Nick, for people who aren't as intelligent as you, I'm more than happy go out of my way to be helpful, as opposed to adopting an unnecessarily stroppy and supercilious tone, when it comes to providing people with information that pins the tail on the donkey for them. Some issues are not as simple as they might seem, such as your semi-point about taxes, which I'm pretty certain is not 100% correct. If you would take the trouble to look at the title and subtitle, they do not strictly prescribe that we discuss "the need (or not) for a licEnce within the UK", right? The question being asked was about watching internet TV; for some people this is a confusing area, and an area where unscrupulous traders could quite happily sell something dishonestly without any concern for those buying it.

You need a licence to receive live (and almost live) broadcasted TV signals whilst in the UK; that's what the law says; nothing to do with channels, licensed or otherwise strictly speaking. "A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence" http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030021_en_34 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.83.203 (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This is about the TV licence not the BBC

There seem to be some contributors adding content that shows public support for the BBC. That's fine for article about the BBC, but this is an article about the TV licence, and the TV licence is used to fund a range of channels and services, of which the BBC is just one. For that reason I've removed some content to do with polls about support for or opposition to the BBC, as it's not relevant or synonymous with support for or opposition to the BBC. I imagine there'll be one or two "WTF" moments for one or two readers, but hopefully, with a little reflection they will see that my actions are in the interests of objectivity, and sticking to the point of the article, and not a statement about the BBC either way.

cheers.

Macdaddy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.83.203 (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

67.58% - All TV This mean all UK TV channels? or BBC channels? 62.255.140.30 (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

How is it lawful to charge for national broadband wiring within the TV licence?

The European Convention on Human Rights allows people to impart and receive information without restriction. There is an exception for TV licensing. Implicit in this is that the licensing must be for TV, not for something else. The Conservative Government's proposal to wire the entire country with superfast broadband and recover the cost via the TV licence fee is surely an unlawful tax not authorised by the European Convention on Human Rights? 213.48.46.141 (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Can yhou cite a reliable source for this claim? Nick Cooper (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"ARTICLE 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

The right here is to freedom of expression free from interference by public authority. As an exception, States can still licence "broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises". A new tax, to be included as an element in the licence fee, to provide conduits nationally for reception and transmission of internet communications (i.e. enhanced broadband for everyone) isn't the licensing of "broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises". It goes beyond, and outside, the provision. Such a tax ought therefore to be held to be illegal under Article 10 as an illegal tax if someone wants to litigate the point.

I suggest Mr Hunt ought to take legal advice on this point rather than risk rendering the entire licence fee irrecoverable nationally because an element within it amounts to an illegal tax. (The Labour Government were proposing to deal with this by a 50p tax on broadband users, not a new tax element within the TV licence fee.)

213.48.46.141 (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

They appear to have done this now: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14539380 Query whether it makes the whole UK licence fee illegal and irrecoverable? 86.189.14.189 (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of this talk page is to discuss improving this article. Until this legal issue is picked up by a reliable source, in a relevant manner (such as a legal challenge) further discussion here is irrelevant as it can't be added to the article. Pit-yacker (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What about transmission licensing ?

This article gives full information on the TV reception licence and zero information on the TV transmission licence. So it's only telling half the story. Either the title should be changed or information on transmission licences should be included. Because at the moment this is a woefully inadequate article on Television licensing in the United Kingdom. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The title "Television licensing" is derived directly from the term "television licence": it is not intended to be an overview of all licensing involved in television. Driving licence does not cover the licence required to be a driving instructor, for instance, even though it is a licence involved in driving. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Set Top Box

A colour TV licence is not req'd for a set top box with B&W TV since the digital switchover. But it is req'd if they receive the signals via a Personal Video Recorder. QuentinUK (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What about transmission licensing ?

This article gives full information on the TV reception licence and zero information on the TV transmission licence. So it's only telling half the story. Either the title should be changed or information on transmission licences should be included. Because at the moment this is a woefully inadequate article on Television licensing in the United Kingdom. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The title "Television licensing" is derived directly from the term "television licence": it is not intended to be an overview of all licensing involved in television. Driving licence does not cover the licence required to be a driving instructor, for instance, even though it is a licence involved in driving. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Set Top Box

A colour TV licence is not req'd for a set top box with B&W TV since the digital switchover. But it is req'd if they receive the signals via a Personal Video Recorder. QuentinUK (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Gender breakdown of prosecutions

I'm not entirely convinced this is notable. Assuming a random/even split, out of every 100 prosecution, one would expect 50 male and 50 female. The stated 1:2 ratio would be around 33 men and 66 women - not a huge difference for either. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at the court proceedings section of your local paper - male defendants always outnumber female defendants in most criminal cases. The 2:1 ratio women to men in this case is unusual - almost certainly it is due to the way people are prosecuted for TV licence evasion. In almost all cases those prosecuted for this offense have signed a 'confession' on the doorstep. The most likely cause for the the high proportion of women prosecuted is, as the article referenced suggests, that women are more likely to be at home when the TV licence officer calls. Alternatively, it could be that men are less likely to sign a statement that incriminates them. It is interesting that TV Licensing claims to catch 1000 evaders a week but only proceeds against 300 of them.193.105.48.21 (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

There is an interesting article here: http://www.spiderbomb.com/tv/womenprison.html - it also explains the discrepency between the number of evaders and the number of prosecutions.89.206.230.105 (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Biased source + dead-link to supposed original source (which looks iffy in itself) = not usable. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's a cracker of a reference then - from Radical Statistics 57 (Summer '94) http://www.radstats.org.uk/no057/gordonpantazis.pdf - in 1992, 58% of all convictions for women (excluding summary motoring offences) were for TV licence evasion. 89.206.230.105 (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

So it's 58% by virtue of selectively excluding other convictions that might make it look less "significant"? And even then, 58% is not that much different from a 50/50 split. It's also at least 19 years out of date, so we can't rely on it for anything now. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You didn't understand. That's 58% of all convictions for women (excluding summary motoring offences). In other words the majority of criminal cases involving women (taking out motoring offences) were for TV licence evasion. In the same year less than 10% of male convictions were for tv licence evasion. 89.206.230.105 (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It's still a nonsense concept. Men outnumber women for the vast majority of crime types, and obviously male criminals outnumber female ones as a whole (that's why there are many more male prisons than female prisons), yet somehow it's some sort of "injustice" that women outnumber men in one or two specific offences? How does that work? Arbitrarily discounting summary traffic offences for no adequately explained is also intellectually dishonest, but I guess including them and pushing TVL offences down to 42% didn't suit the agenda there. It's ironic that Table 2 clearly shows that substantially more men got imprisoned for TVL evasion, yet the following paragraphs try to present such female criminals as being the victims of sexist bias by the justice system. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Well if the point of Wikipedia is to provide interesting information about a subject, I'd say the 2:1 gender balance is very interesting. You'd never find the information on a BBC Website (although they do give the 'amusing' excuses that people give on their doorstep http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14975564). The method chosen by the BBC to deal with offenders (a door-to door prosecution service) would seem to bear down more heavily on women (unless you believe that women are much more likely than men to be TV licence fee dodgers). I wonder if there is any crime where women are twice as likely as men to feature in court?89.206.230.105 (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's an update on this subject - http://www.cityam.com/article/1377046054/exclusive-tv-licence-offences-responsible-tenth-all-uk-court-cases - it's interesting that the TV Licensing authority (ie the BBC) accepts that 'the gender imbalance was because women are more likely to be at home when their inspectors call.' 193.105.48.21 (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It also says that there were 155,000 convictions out of 180,000 prosecutions, so massive 86% were confirmed to be criminals. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It would be interesting to hear how the gender imbalance in prosecutions can be squared with the BBC's statutory duty to 'Eliminate unlawful discrimination and harassment on the grounds of gender' and 'Promote equality of opportunity between men and women' http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/equality-AB8/ . The method chosen to prosecute TV licence evasion guarantees a higher number of women are caught than men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.105.48.21 (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any proof that that is the case, as opposed to, say, women simply evading more than men? As noted above, there are gender biases in lots of different crimes. I doubt anyone would claim that more men get convicted of robbery because of sexist investigation techniques. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The actual answer given to Lord Laird in the Houswe of Lords only gives the statistics - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldtoday/writtens/120813.htm - in fact, 68% of people convicted for the offence were women, so we're getting close to 7 in 10. It's in the City AM article that a reason is given by the 'TV Licensing authority' ie. the BBC. According to the BBC - 'the gender imbalance was because women are more likely to be at home when their inspectors call.' I assume from this that TV Licensing EOs mostly call Monday to Friday 9am-5pm. 89.206.230.105 (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not evidence, it's just an assumption. There are plenty of reasons to suppose that the chances of there being a man in any given house at that time of the day may not be significantly less than for women (e.g. men are twice as likely to be unemployed, three times more likely to be self-employed, etc.). Nick Cooper (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's the BBC who give the reason and it's their contractors who knock on the door so I suppose they know or at least have the data. One thing that interests me is the fact that the EOs have the discretion when faced with an evader to simply sell a licence and not take a statement. They have censored the part from their visiting procedures which say on what grounds they do this. 89.206.230.105 (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I doubt they know anything of the sort. If they actually had information on the employment status or other circumstances of those who are prosecuted, they would undoubtedly come up with a more convincing analysis than a lazy, "women are more likely to be at home," because in many respects they're not to a degree that would explain such a large discrepancy.

There seems to be a suggestion that women are over-represented either because housewives are copping the prosecution for a joint crime (i.e. with their male partner) by virtue of being the one at home, or because they're poor single mothers. The first is probably over-stated, given that vast majority of women with a working partner also work themselves; the second may merely explain the reason for their choice to break the law. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

There's probably a combination of factors - I'd agree with your previous comments. Also, men might be more likely to say nothing and simply slam the door in in the EOs face. BTW, having had a look again at the interview form TVL 178 (or at least that part which is not redacted) it appears that TV Licensing do record the occupation (it's one of their standard questions) but not the gender of the person being interviewed. So it looks like the statement from the TV Licensing wasn't based on hard statistics. Presumably, the courts record the sex of the defendant and that information was passed on to the Lord Laird.193.105.48.21 (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)