Only watching BBC iplayer

On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 13:59:02 +0100, Ian
wrote:

In message , Brian Gaff
writes
Well has anyone successfully argued this point. I can recall only about
three years back a story on a radio station of a person claiming this exact
thing after purchasing a new telly that the licensing dept were hounding her
to get a one and they said as I said in the previous message.

the question is, how do you prove it?
Brian

I seem to remember the rule being, if a device is installed, and capable
of receiving broadcasts.

So, if you don't have an aerial or a dish, no license needed.

Or a cable connection.

Steve

--
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. http://www.justnn.com

Roderick Stewart wrote:

Does anybody really believe the claimed capabilities of detector vans,
even the real ones with actual equipment in them?

No, emphatically not.

Who
would even know what a local oscillator is, and how would the
prosecution respond to a challenge to show that it was being
re-radiated from one particular aerial and not the one next door?

Indeed, you don't technically need a local oscillator to extract a mux
from the "air" - you could do it all using DSP. I'm not saying they
do, just that you could. And anyway, does my TV switch off the local
oscillator when I'm watching iPlayer? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.
What about my YouView box? I bet its local oscillators run all the
time, tuned to whatever the last mux was they were receiving, even when
I'm watching catchup through it.

I strongly suspect there's so much hash from all the things going on in
my TV that you couldn't extract meaningful information about whether
I'm watching real-time TV or not from all that noise.

The whole system is an utter mess and needs overhauling.

I absolutely agree. However, I can't think of a better system, save
that of receiving funding directly from the tax payer. In my view it
is ESSENTIAL that the BBC does not have adverts, and is not a
subscription channel. It is unique and invaluable for that reason.

--
SteveT

Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Brian Gaff
writes
Unfortunately I believe you only need to have equipment capable of
receiving the service to have to buy a licence. IE the powers that
be don't trust the viewers!

Unfortunately, you believe completely wrongly.

What governs whether a licence is required is Section 363(1) of the
Communications Act 2003:

"363 (1) A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
this Part."

Note 'installed' as an alternative to 'used'.

On 06/10/2013 20:11, j brooks wrote:
After their son left home recently and went to live with his girlfriend, the
parents practically never watch tv and they dont even watch BBC for the news
since they think its only suitable for Guardian Readers.

If they do ever want to watch BBC its only on iplayer after someone has
recommended something to them. Then they plug a laptop into the tv to watch
the iplayer recording on the television. Aljazeera news for world wide news
and Sky news is preferred, and enough if they want the news.

They have freeview digi box that can record, but they think if they never
record anything from the BBC or watch directly a BBC program on the
television freeview box and only watch BBC offerings in iplayer, then they
dont qualify for having to buy a BBC television license.

Is this assumption correct? Since they are financially on their 'beam-ends'
this would be very helpful for them to save this expense.

The licence requirement applies regardless of what channels are watched.
If they install the equipment to record or watch then they need a
licence. There are soem exemptions but from what you say they don't apply.


--
Peter Crosland

On 06/10/2013 20:11, j brooks wrote:
After their son left home recently and went to live with his girlfriend, the
parents practically never watch tv and they dont even watch BBC for the news
since they think its only suitable for Guardian Readers.

If they do ever want to watch BBC its only on iplayer after someone has
recommended something to them. Then they plug a laptop into the tv to watch
the iplayer recording on the television. Aljazeera news for world wide news
and Sky news is preferred, and enough if they want the news.

They have freeview digi box that can record, but they think if they never
record anything from the BBC or watch directly a BBC program on the
television freeview box and only watch BBC offerings in iplayer, then they
dont qualify for having to buy a BBC television license.

Is this assumption correct? Since they are financially on their 'beam-ends'
this would be very helpful for them to save this expense.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BppbW1NUU70
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Whr9mRobgxY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_D-fRdLgWI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDEeNygz30I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPwNgIsH9BA

On 06/10/2013 20:11, j brooks wrote:
After their son left home recently and went to live with his girlfriend, the
parents practically never watch tv and they dont even watch BBC for the news
since they think its only suitable for Guardian Readers.

If they do ever want to watch BBC its only on iplayer after someone has
recommended something to them. Then they plug a laptop into the tv to watch
the iplayer recording on the television. Aljazeera news for world wide news
and Sky news is preferred, and enough if they want the news.

They have freeview digi box that can record, but they think if they never
record anything from the BBC or watch directly a BBC program on the
television freeview box and only watch BBC offerings in iplayer, then they
dont qualify for having to buy a BBC television license.

Is this assumption correct? Since they are financially on their 'beam-ends'
this would be very helpful for them to save this expense.


When 75 they will get their license free
Derek.

On 07/10/2013 09:55, Roderick Stewart wrote:
Why should anybody have to argue such a thing? I couldn't successfully
argue that I didn't buy the big sharp knife in my kitchen drawer to
use as an offensive weapon, but I shouldn't have to. I'm happy to
explain what I did buy it for (even though I have no obligation to do
so, and nobody has an automatic right to rummage through my kitchen
drawer in the first place), and if anybody wants to allege that it has
any other purpose, I think the burden of proof is theirs.

Rod.
You did though pay the VAT on your big sharp knive.
Derek.

In article ,
says...

On 07/10/2013 12:41, Brian Gaff wrote:
well we seem to have polarised opinions then. I guess its basically true,
but you need to be able to prove it some how. the Licensing authority will
attempt to bully you and I suppose its whether you allow them to win or
allow them to take you to court. the info in this thread from official web
sites would be useful in the defence though.

Brian


The presumption seems to be that every property needs a licence. I had
lots of threatening letters from TV Licensing in respect of my
father-in-law's house when it was unoccupied for a year or so after he
came to live with us and before it was sold.

The way forward is to fill in the bit saying that no one in the
household watches live TV and this will stop them for a time. When the
letters start to arrive again, rinse and repeat.

If you are not watching or recording live TV in the household, you have
nothing to worry about.

In article ,
says...

In message , Brian Gaff
writes
Well has anyone successfully argued this point. I can recall only about
three years back a story on a radio station of a person claiming this exact
thing after purchasing a new telly that the licensing dept were hounding her
to get a one and they said as I said in the previous message.

the question is, how do you prove it?
Brian

I seem to remember the rule being, if a device is installed, and capable
of receiving broadcasts.

So, if you don't have an aerial or a dish, no license needed.

If you do not watch or record live TV then you do not need a licence.

The kit you have and how it is connected is irrelevant.

In article , says...

Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Brian Gaff
writes
Unfortunately I believe you only need to have equipment capable of
receiving the service to have to buy a licence. IE the powers that
be don't trust the viewers!

Unfortunately, you believe completely wrongly.

What governs whether a licence is required is Section 363(1) of the
Communications Act 2003:

"363 (1) A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
this Part."

Note 'installed' as an alternative to 'used'.

Are you reving up for another round of Playing Semantics?