Talk:Television licensing in the United Kingdom/Archive 2

Inconsistent use of the term 'Television'

It seems to me that the use of the word television in this article is inconsistent with the definition of television in Wikipedia, where we are told that a television screen without a tuner is called a monitor. The licence states that it is needed "to use any television receiving equipment . . . . to watch programmes as they are being shown on TV." But if a monitor without a tuner is not a TV then programmes that are not 'broadcast' by radio transmission do not qualify as 'being shown on TV'. This means that internet only television (which is now coming into existence) does not need a TV licence, even to view on a 'TV'. The phrase 'being shown on TV' is obviously problematic, as is the term 'public' television, because the internet is public. If internet TV and cable TV constitute public television, then the phrase "as they are being shown on TV" seems redundant and nonsensical. --Memestream (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Examples of mailings

The original description "Examples of mailings produced by TV Licensing" is the most accurate and the least POV.

• No one is obliged to contact TV Licensing unless they need a TV licence.
• The letters give the recipient no good reason to contact TV Licensing, other than to buy a licence, which may not be necessary.
• There is no clear evidence that the recipient has not contacted TV Licensing: you may think it seems that the recipient has not contacted TV Licensing but to say so asserts POV.
• Letters such as this are in fact sent to people who have advised TV Licensing that they do not need a TV licence. So, your assuming that all recipients of such letters have not contacted TV Licensing is, again, asserting POV.

Worth Knowing (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, find and post a rock-solid source for each of those facts - be sure to keep WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR in mind :). _TalkIslander 16:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You find and post a rock-solid source for your presumption. If you cannot then your assertion is POV. "Examples of mailings produced by TV Licensing" is fact. Worth Knowing (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It is, however, a POV-slanted fact. If the site contained letters detailing how a customer has paid their bill, is up to date with their license etc. (i.e. 'positive' letters), then it's be more NPOV. As it is, it's not. Nick Cooper also makes some excellent points bellow. _TalkIslander 16:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not POV in any way, and letters to people who have bought TV licences are in this context entirely irrelevant. What would be relevant is a letter from TV Licensing acknowledging that the recipient does not need a TV licence and will not be treated as a potential criminal. If anyone can produce such a letter then a lot of people who are not obliged to have a TV licence will be utterly delighted. Worth Knowing (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"...and will not be treated as a potential criminal... a lot of people who are not obliged to have a TV licence will be utterly delighted." - this makes it crystal clear that you have a large POV slant against TV Licensing (as if we didn't know already). so any credibility you had has been shot. Please stop trying to push your POV across. _TalkIslander 23:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Islander, I have no difficulty with people expressing POV on the discussion page. Of course I have a POV. Everyone has a POV, including you. What I object to is people expressing POV in the article. Qualifying the description of a link with an editor's interpretation of its content is editorial bias. Worth Knowing (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It is clear from the site in question that the letters includes are restricted to those sent to a single address, from January 2006 onwards. The author of the site - presumed to be the householder in question - makes no reference to having replied to any of them, and indeed a number of letters indicate that there has been no response to previous letters. It is therefore unreasonable to suggest - as you seem to be - that the householder has replied to some/all of the letters. "Examples of mailings produced by TV Licensing" is therefore misleading, as the site contains not general letters from TVL, but specifically those that are sent to a non-responding address, and this should be made clear if we are to include the link. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Unlike you, I do not attempt to speak for the case in question. I speak as an independent observer who is mindful of the facts. In that light, "Examples of mailings produced by TV Licensing" is entirely factual, non-judgmental and neutral, and requires no qualification by any Wikipedia editor. Worth Knowing (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, as Islander has pointed out above, your own gross POV on this issue is abundantly clear, so your protestations about about being an "independent observer" ring a little hollow. The simple fact is that the site in question demonstrably contains only the sort of letters that get sent under particular circumstances, i.e. when the householder chooses not to reply to any of them. People who have licences are unlikely to get any of these letters, and neither are those who choose to inform TVL from the outset that they do not require a licence, so an overly-broad description of "Examples of mailings produced by TV Licensing" is inappropriate. The vast majority of people will never see letters like these. For a example, a few years ago my flatmate got a new TV, and a couple weeks later got a letter from TVL noting that their records did not show anyone at our address with her name holding a licence. One brief phone call to say that I - the licence-holder - was still resident and quoting the licence number, and we heard no more about it. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Nick Cooper, "Examples of mailings produced by TV Licensing" is not "overly-broad" as you say, it is concise and inarguably factual and so, NPOV. Your experience is of no consequence because it does not take into account the experience of those who are not obliged to have TV licences. You are seen to be a pointedly biased editor, and that's no good at all. Worth Knowing (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, how's about the experience of someone who was not obliged to have a TV license? When I moved to student halls a couple of years ago, I received a letter stating that I needed a TV license to watch TV. I phoned them up, told them that I had no TV, and was not planning to buy one, and never heard from them again. That aside, that link cannot be used in this article, as it shows a heavily baised selection of letters. We don't even know the circumstances behind the letters - they may well (shock horror) have been perfectly justified. They may not. Regardless, they are far too one sided to include in this, a neutral, unbiased encylopaedia article. _TalkIslander 16:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Worth Knowing: Excuse me? "A pointedly biased editor"? I would note that you have made less than thirty edits on Wikipedia, all bar one being connected with TV Licensing. That doesn't make you look like a fully-rounded editor. It also seems bizarre that you discount my experience as a private individual with TVL, yet are prepared to champion the experience of another private individual, i.e. the author of the website in question. The bottom line is that the latter has clearly chosen not to co-operate with TVL in any way, which is of course their right, but their subsequent experience is entirely a result of that choice. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, no, the subsequent experience is entirely the result of TVL's actions. 86.158.247.55 (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that TVL would have sent all those letters even if the householder had responded to clarify the situation at an early stage? I know a few people who either have no TV or have a monochrome set, yet the most frequently they hear from TVL is once every six months - to ask if they have either acquired a TV or upgraded to colour respectively - if that. In comparison, 22 letters over 31 months is clearly exceptional, and logically can only be down to the non-response from the householder in question. One can argue a case that TVL could make it easier/cheaper/fre for people to inform them they do not require a licence, but one suspects that there will always be those who would still not respond, especially if they are obsessed to the degree of maintaining a website about TVL "harrasment". Nick Cooper (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"Worth Knowing" - If you're a professional then I suggest that you get out of here. You're trying to teach the blinding obvious to defensive bigots. Come back when you've found a bunch of polite letters from TVL to people whom, they admit, don't need to pay the TV licence fee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.183.217 (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Conservative-leaning newspapers

Why don't we remove the uncited reference to "conservative-leaning newspapers"? Considering that the existing licence fee system is extensively criticised by a left-wing think-tank (the Institute for Public Policy Research), by the public at large and by the government, the criticisms don't seem to be a party-political matter. Michael Brazil (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is broadly accurate that the most hostile papers are the right leaning ones. Certainly, the likes of The Mirror, Guardian, and Independent are no where near as strong in any criticism as the likes of The Mail and Sun.

As for other organisations, I think these are being thrown in as a red herring, as they arent actually newspapers, and so dont relate to the present sentence.

I think at this there is also a confusion between critising the licence fee and outright opposition to it. Different organisations have made criticsms for a wide variety of reasons and mand of these organistations dont necessarily agree with each other as to the problem. The solutions to some of these issues are mutually contradictory.

Perhaps a distinction needs to be made more clearly, as there seems to be suggestion that criticising the licence fee is equivalent to wanting its abolition. But then it gets difficult - as I understand the Mail, for example, doesnt oppose the licence fee, it merely yearns for what it regards the BBC used to be. By contrast, The Sun opposes the licence fee in principle - but at that point it is fair to point out, its motives for opposition.

Further on the subject of other organisations and the distinction between opposition and criticsm -

As I remember, the IPPR report noted that they believed the licence fee was the best option (often called the least worst), but it could be modified to make if fairer. Equally the select committee merely pointed out issues about reclassifying the licence fee as a tax. As far as I can tell, on a governmental and party political side, the government supports the licence fee - I havent seen anything to suggest otherwise, certainly they renewed the BBC's charter (and have certainly had chance to make changes). As it stands the only political party wants to abolish the licence fee is the BNP, which can hardly be described as mainstream. Pit-yacker (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you've written here. I'll add that abolition of the TV licence fee may render the BBC just another commercial broadcaster, and in my view we have plenty already. My concern is that there should be no implication that criticism is a matter of party-political leaning, which would undermine its objectivity. Michael Brazil (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Definition of "installed"

It is my understanding that "installed" refering to television receiving equipment for the purposes of determing whether a license is required is defined in the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. However I haven't yet been able to determine if this is the case. Does anyone have any more information on this? Pontificalibus (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Foreign channels

I put this comment in 'Discussion' because I am not an expert. The opening statement of the article " a television licence is required to receive any publicly broadcast television service, from any source" is according to my information not correct. You do not need a TV licence to receive non-UK television channels, for example Eurosport which is French (not British Eurosport, which is UK) and channels from Germany, Italy etc., provided you receive those channels direct from satellite and you are not able to receive any UK channels. I have that fact confirmed in writing from the TVLA in a letter from E. Maddocks of the Policy Group, 20th March 1999.

This is not the choice of the UK government. I believe the UK and Irish governments lost a decision in the European Court (when ? I cannot give the date) which decided that licence fees were fundamentally in conflict with the Treaty of Rome and are only accepted as a strictly 'in country' matter. Quite what the Court will think of the current attempt to extend the licence fee to cover receipt of television over the internet is yet to be determined, but given that they were accepted grudingly as part of the status quo last time I suspect they will not approve of any extension.

I don't doubt that those with more precise/correct knowledge will be able to tidy this up, but the basic point is correct, and documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emrys J (talk • contribs) 10:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your point is mentioned in the article under the subheading "When a TV licence is required". There you will see that the circumstances you refer to changed with the Communications Act of 2003.86.133.165.182 (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Joke

This whole article is a joke, right? Is there really a government agency in the U.K. called "TV Licencing" that drops off at your doorstep like a swat team to check if you're watching tv without a licence? It's so ridiculous I find it hard to believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.167.216.28 (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "received"

I'm not sure this article is clear when writing of recordings of broadcast programmes. For example, if I had no TV license and wished to watch recorded programmes, then may I record them as they are broadcast and watch them later? The article seems to conflict with itself: "You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, digital box, DVD or video recorder, PC, laptop or mobile phone to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV" and "A previously recorded TV programme is outside the scope of the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004, because it is not "received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public""

What does "received" actually mean? Is it when a tuner receives the broadcast or when the viewer receives the programme?

The only interpretation I can think of is that for a programme to be recorded, it has to be covered by a TV license, but for someone to watch it without a TV license is fine. Can someone please clarify this for me and for the sake of improving the article? --91.84.95.139 (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation in the last line above is correct - to record a television programme live from the air, you must have a TV license. To watch that video, however, you don't need a license. I agree that there's some poor wording in the article regarding 'received' - not sure how to fix it, though... _TalkIslander 20:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There is another aspect to the question.

Historically, the word "received" was used in the context of "television receiver" (or tuner), as described in legislation. This is why we have long needed a licence to record a live TV programme as well as to watch a live TV programme, the reception being the instance of decoding the televised signal, whether there was anyone present to view the decoded signal or not.

However, with the more recent distribution of live TV as data via the Internet, the precise meaning of the word "received" is what provoked Ofcom to describe the Internet as a "grey area", with Ofcom understanding that the need for a TV licence depends on use of a TV tuner and TV Licensing maintaining that it does not. Trying to make the meaning of "received" clear in the article would necessitate contentious legal interpretation (POV), until such time as someone can report a judicial ruling.

Going on from this, if the rule is indeed that one needs a licence to "watch" as distinct from "receive", then totally blind people would be exempt (provided they switch off or cover their receivers when sighted visitors are present).

Michael Brazil (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually registered blind people only needed a black and white TV license, even if they owned a colour set. 83.104.138.141 (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Confusion from TV licence agency over communal TV licence in shared accommodation

Helpfully the old TV licence FAQ had an entry stating the following: "If you've signed a separate tenancy agreement and you're taking a TV receiver to use in your room, you'll need a TV Licence of your own. However, your licence will also cover a TV receiver in use in a communal lounge." (from http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/students.jsp#link5 ).

Now the way that is worded suggests that covers the case when you have a TV in your (sole use) room AND simultaneously have a TV in the communal area (and you are under a separate tenancy agreement). Such a reading conflicts with Wikipedia's text:

"For example, a house in multiple occupation may have private bedrooms and shared communal areas: if five occupants share such a property with individual tenancy agreements then they may require up to six television licences if each private room contains a television receiver and a communal area also contains a television receiver"

Finally there's another snippet of information on the TV licensing website: "If a student has a separate tenancy agreement but a television is only being used in a communal area, then only one licence is required." (From http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/mediaandcommunity/mediapressreleases.jsp?archive=1 )

It is a pity that this does not go on to spell out what happens in the multiple occupancy with multiple (simultaneously used) TVs where one of the multiple TVs is a communal TV case. The whole thing seems to be have been left purposefully unclear.

It is worth noting that the first link's information has not made it over to the new tv licence metafaq.com site.

79.79.85.67 (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The idea that the communal TV needs a licence of its own (when it is not the sole TV in the house with one licence) in shared separate accommodation seems to be held in places like uk.legal too - http://groups.google.com/group/uk.legal/msg/cf0b2cfe69a79809 . Unfortunately I have yet to find an official document backing this view up. 79.79.85.67 (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

And here's a post from someone stating the opposite (that a single licence will cover one one room in addtion to shared rooms) on the same newsgroup - http://groups.google.com/group/uk.legal/msg/4d698940babdec38 . Still no references to why this would be the case.... 79.79.85.67 (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that both points of view are correct. If a tenant owns two TV sets and puts one in his or her private room and the other in a communal room, then my understanding is that both are covered by that tenant's licence. If the communal TV is provided by the landlord, for example, or was left behind by a former tenant, then it's not covered by any tenant's licence and needs a separate licence. 86.144.32.124 (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I has to reread the above several times to fully understand the point being made (which I foolishly missed the first time round). The previous post is saying whether the communal TV is covered depends entirely on who owns it. If it's owned by a tenant with an existing licence that's fine. If not then another licence is required. The issue of ownership is yet another interesting spin on the problem but again it seems impossible to find any definitive statements saying that this interpretation is indeed the "correct" one. For the sake of anyone else contributing to this discussion please assume the following two scenarios:

You have a house that consists of three rooms - one communal room and two bedrooms (each of which is for the use of a single sole tennant) with locks on the doors. There are two tennants in the house each of whom sublets their room separately from the other. There is a hooked up broadcast receiving TV in every room of the house (i.e. three TVs). How many licences are legally required? (and why? - sources please!)

You have a house that consists of three rooms - one communal room and two bedrooms (each of which is for the use of a single sole tennant) with locks on the doors. There are two tennants in the house each of whom sublets their room separately from the other. There is a hooked up broadcast receiving TV in ONE bedroom AND the communal room (i.e. two TVs). The communal TV belongs to the tenant who does NOT have an existing licence or TV in their room. How many licences are legally required? (and why? - sources please!) 144.32.126.14 (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried asking TV Licensing? They're the authority on this, until they're challenged in a court of law. 81.157.213.29 (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite grateful

I am really grateful to live in North America, where none of this license-for-operating-a-television receiving equipment crap exists. Some may disagree and say that paying a yearly fee results in more independent programs and fewer ads, but I haven't got much to complain about the stuff I watch on my TV (although I've never watched TV abroad, I do watch BBC America on occasion, and I personally don't think I'm missing out on anything content-wise). On another note, the Aussies take full advantage of their right to free speech without having to pay some for ridiculous license. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear... now please take a look at WP:TALK. _TalkIslander 23:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please specify which part of WP:Talk it is that you are concerned with. It's a very lengthy piece and I suspect that most of us don't have enough spare time to study it all (not to mention all the other Wikipedia guidelines; you could easily make a four-year professional degree course from them if you want). 86.141.231.161 (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The very first two sentences, actually: "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." _TalkIslander 09:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems a lot of Americans don't actually understand how the licence is regarded, hence stuff like "license-for-operating-a-television receiving equipment". Licences in the UK have long had a broader understanding as a mechanism for taxes/service charges to finance particular public spending. The TV licence is basically a subscription, though one with a disconnect between where the money goes and what you get. Even the people who argue against it on freedom grounds base their argument on the right to not have to pay for a service (the BBC) you don't want, not on "freedom to operate a receiver" grounds. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand not having to pay for a service you don't want, and in that perspective, the U.K. licencing scheme is more fair than other countries where public broadcasters are financed by the state. At least in the U.K. people who don't watch TV don't have to pay for it. On the other hand, it seems quite ridiculous to try to tax the reception of radio waves. A characteristic of radio waves is that their propagation is not easily controlled. It would make more sense to tax the sale of television equipment.

license vs licence

Should we settle on one or the other here? TV Licensing itself seems rather schizophrenic about it, their home page (both tvlicencing.co.uk and tvlicensing.co.uk) even use both. Any opinions? SimonTrew (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As I remember, Licence is a noun and License is a verb. So correct form is TV Licensing for the process and TV Licence for the little bit of paper. I'm not sure the URLs that TV Licensing have registered are particular relevant. It is common for organisations to register common mis-spellings of their name, along with in many cases abusive forms such as <company name>sucks and derogatory nick-names. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I undertand your point and indeed it is like device/devise or advice/advise. I still find it rather inconsistent here, as a noun it is used both ways (no doubt because of various editors' contributions). I just don't know which way to fall. As a UK article one would think UK spelling, on the other hand it seems that it gets more hits from those NOT in the UK than those within it (who have the delight of getting reminders from our friends at Bristol). SimonTrew (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh BTW to make clear: the website yes I was not talking about the URL but the actual content of the site. I checked it to try to come to a conclusion on which way to spell. SimonTrew (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the correct British English spellings are "licence" and "licensed/licensing". End of. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Decline of Detector Vans

Since the method used to detect TV's utilised detection of the radiation given off by an active Cathode Ray Tube (and eputting aside everyone knew that simply unplugging the TV prevented detection if you knew a van was in the area), the changeover to LCD and Plasma is the main reason of the change to using databases and working on a a system of guilty till proven innocent rather than the previous innoncent to proven guilty. 83.104.138.141 (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it detects the local oscillator, not the CRT. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I had the TV people turn up on my door asking why I hadn't a licence. This is because I don't watch TV. The warning letter says "If you watch TV you must have a licence". Of course I knew they would catch up with me, but I wanted to argue the point- and they MUST have got it off a database since, first, I genuinely don't watch TV, and they knew it cos I was saying things like "listen again" instead of, I presume, "watch again", and also that I live in a block of flats that with its construction is esssentially a Faraday cage so the chances of them picking up a signal are pretty small. Not impossible, I admit. But far more likely they got it from when I signed up for my Virgin Media Internet contract, which includes some TV channels (even though I did not ask for them). I have no get-out there since, it seems to me, anyone with a broadband internet connexion basically has to pay a TV licence, whether they actually use it or not.

I don't mind cos I listen to Radio 4 all day and am quite happy to pay the licence just for that. I just know damned well they did not detect that I was watching TV, cos I wasn't. Si Trew (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I should add that I do have a small TV but don't watch TV on it, only use it for my antique ZX Spectrum. The Wireless Telegraphy Act used to require it for "equipment capable of receiving broadcast television signals", but now it is not. In reality it has to come down really to whether you actually watch TV or not. The law as in ass in this regard. Blackbirds and worms receive broadcast television signals, but they don't pay. I know the definition has now changed, but not for the better. Si Trew (talk) 10:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It makes me laugh that normally intelligent people believe there really where/are 'detector vans' - TVs have never given off anywhere enough output 'signal' to be detected. Maybe the word 'receiver' passed people by? Maybe some people believe that the licensing people have heat and sonic detection to firstly see what was happening in a room and then record the audio from the set via vibration to the windows? It might surprise people its all done from a database by marketing companies. Previously by junk mail specialists OgilvyOne and now junk mail supremos Proximity. They junk mail you into paranoia and fear - and then randomly try to get access to any house without a license. Tell them once you don't need a license then never respond to anything they send or answer the door to them. You are not breaking the law ignoring their junk mail and door step challenges - so long as your claim in legit. 86.28.152.165 (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The basic laws of electromagnetism mean that every receiver is also a transmitter. Si Trew (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)