TV license enforcement visit

[andydd]

Just ignore them, the only reason people get prosecuted for these offences is if they 'hang themselves' by admitting to these Enforcement Officers that they do indeed own a TV but have no licence.

 

Andy

[andydd]

I really do have one Buzby, it was renewed at the end of January as it should have been. It was correctly addressed and is sitting in the envelope on the mantlepiece as we even joked when it arrived that it had better stay there ready for our annual run in.

 

Once they start on this there is no way to get them to accept I have one. Even on the phone they are only interested in you buying one or proving why you don't need one. I'd have thought having got a license was good reason not to need one but that isn't on their list:confused:

 

If it was me I'd be tempted to get them to start court action and make them look stoopid.

 

Andy

[andydd]

Thanks civilcid I understood that bit.

 

What I'm more interested in is

 

would having a PC (or any device e.g. phone, Xbox, PS3, Wii, etc) that is capable of streaming live TV over the internet i.e. has access to the internet and a screen be enough to secure a conviction for license evasion under present rules.

 

As Buzby pointed out the offence isn't based on what you do with the equipment just that you have it.

 

So even if it has never been used for streaming live TV would I still be found guilty of license evasion in a Court for owning it?

 

Good point, as it is possible to be found guilty of not having a licence but simply the ownership of a TV, appying the same logic it should also apply to PC's and increasingly mobile phones as they are all capable of recieving live TV broadcasts, however this would be a big step to take and it therefore unlikely although as suggested in another thread, it would no doubt be theoritically possible to snoop on people and see if they watched live tv on the web by tracing IP addresses, etc.....

 

Andy

[andydd]

I sent an email to capita asking for them to explain what is and isnt the case regarding ownership of a telly, but not using it, as in I said I would dispose of sattelite box and cut the analogue aerial, which is soon no use any how and said I only wanted the telly kept for dvds and games machine.

 

I got no reply at all. I even asked why the tvl site giving advice giving impression as long as you do not use live broadcast is is okay to have telly is not the impression given by their enforcers, as in you own a telly, pay up.

 

No reply.

 

The more you investigate what the requirements of a TV Licence, the murkier it becomes, we have already established that the information provided by Capita/TV Licencing is vague and not a true representation of the law, the information they provide has to some extent become clearer in recent years, (it used to be simply..'youve got a tv, you need a licence'), although it has become clearer in some aspects it is still only an interpretation of the law and it is still possible you could find yourself in court and found guilty despite following all their guidelines.

 

The introduction of the internet, iplayer, tv-on-demand, phones with tv capabilities, games consoles only makes the already murky waters somewhat darker.

 

I personally use a Windows media center PC to supply all my entertainment needs, I'm sure the TV can in theory pick up a an analouge signal but I've never tried and I certainly havn't bothered to 'de-tune' it (even if such a thing is possible), nearly everything i want to watch is available on a on-demand service and as long as I watch them after they are shwon live then I am within the law, of course the difference between watching live or after is a few clicks of a mouse. Personally i dont bother telling TV Licencing that I don't need a licence, I just let them waste their time and money writing to me.

 

Andy

[andydd]

But surely if you own a TV set BUT don't use it for watching PC (as in my case), then the BEST advice is still not to talk or say anything to TV Licence inspectors who come calling.

 

The more you communicate with them by giving them your name and details, the more risk you run of being prosecuted, even if you legitimately own a TV but do not use it for watching live programs.

 

In these circumstances it is very unlikely that they would seek to get a warrant to enter your premises as they must first show the judge that they have some suspicion that you are breaking the law.

 

Andy

[andydd]

I gave in and got license for kids and the need to destress at having to deal with these beasts. However have to say been watching more telly now than ever since arrived and sky installed. Funny enough its not bbc but quest etc and living.

 

I feel hopefully companies like sky should offer boxes capable of detuned bbc packages and therefore hopefully enough people could argue we dont watch it, let us not have tv license.

 

The only thing that nags me is I like bbc radio and know that if many opted out from fee, then that would change. So I cant have it both ways.

 

I can however now as a up to date customer as they call it, have a go as I recently did, that they keep putting the wrong details on my licence and payment card and therefore are incompetant, I did like that. They couldnt threaten me for something I wasnt doing anyhow this time like they normally do.

 

I said the reason they keep asking for more than schedule expects to be paid is they cant switch off from being debt collectors, he didnt like it:D

 

But at least I was smiling for once xx

 

It is quite possible not to have a licence but still watch the majority of shows you wish too, just watch everything via 'catch up' services. (As I do).

 

To anyone with a PC running Vista or 7 that has the Media Center option, I'd recommend TunerFree MCE, it provides you with all the 'catch up' programs from BBC, ITV, Ch4, MSN Channel, etc in one place, as long as you don't watch anything live, you can view licence free to your hearts content.

 

http://www.milliesoft.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=11

 

There is also a Sky option, so its possible to watch Sky 'catch up' shows too.

 

http://skyplayer.sky.com/vod/page/default/home.do?DCMP=ILC-GENSKYCOM_DTH

 

This option doesn't require an aerial, just a decent broadband connection.

 

Andy

Edited June 22, 2010 by andydd

[andydd]

That's easy! No, once analogue licenced broadcasts cease, the TV cannot be used to watch live broadcasts, co you would be completely safe from any action.

 

There IS a gotcha, however. If you have a free view box or dongle, then this WILL require a licence, not the TV. So, there is no difficulty in enforcement if the TV is compliant, but there an STB which permits viewing.

 

 

..and buy the smallest dongle you find and when the inspectors come knocking..swallow it

[andydd]

I was under the impression that a licence was for broadcast signals wether through aerials, sat dish (sky) or decoded and sent to houseolds via cable(virgin).

 

What is deemed by live tv, beside's news, sports, first show in series, etc.......

 

there are that many repeated programmes broadcast or are the repeats deemed as 'catch up'

 

It's just a pasing thought. if I am wrong it it will just keep passing by

 

 

 

 

dk

 

ps

nice buzby lol

 

No licence is required to watch (non-live) TV 'catch-up' programs on iPlayer, and yes there is a scenario in which I could watch a 'live' repeat episode of Only Fools & Horses on BBC1 for which I'd need a licence but it I was to watch it (at the same time ?) via a 'streamed' (non-live) catch-up service then I wouldnt need one.

 

And ..yes...there is a fine line between the two, but BBC Licencing certainly give the impression that live refers to anything being broadcast across the airwaves (as well as being streamed over the 'net) as oppossed to anything being streamed over the internet only.

 

Of course, the BBC could seek for a change in the law to include internet streams into the definition of live broadcasts.

 

Andy

Edited June 28, 2010 by andydd

[andydd]

I'd warn against attempting to use a VCR or DVD recorder with analogue tuners, as most require full control of the tuner module. If an STB then it cannot do this, and basic operation is that is will only record what is available on the Scard, so any channel changes will have to be done on the STB, and it would be safe to assume the external recorders have no capability to do this.

 

.

 

Although there are such things as infra red blasters that you can stick onto the front of sky/cable set box boxes. For example windows media center pc's have this capibilty, when you change the channel on the pc, it send a signal to the seto top box and changes this too, when you install media center it guides you through a wizard that asks you questions about the make/model of your sky/cable set box and sets it up for you.

 

Andy

[andydd]

A valid point, and one that just goes to prove how nonsensical the system currently is. However, I am unaware on any successful prosecutions of anyone using a PC and broadband, although there may well be in the future, based on their easily obtainable IP address, so in the scenario you mention, they'll know which PC is viewing the content, the ISP will give your address on an enquiry, and just as with the music priacy enforcers, use the same tactics.

 

It would therefore be easy for an accused person without a licence to say 'prove my IP address viewed live streamed content' and the burden of proof then shifts to the TVLRO. With an old fashion TV set, this is deemed an 'installation' under the original Acts, and therefore it becomes a balance of probability for the jusge to decide. So PC users are less exposed to this risk than TV owners.

 

Whilst possible, I seriously doubt whether the BBC would get involved in the murky world of snooping and harvesting IP addresses for this purpose, one only has to glance over to the ACS Law thread to see how problematic this could become.

 

Andy

[andydd]

(1) IR blasters are prone to failure when you need them, I had a TiVo for years, and had a 30% failure rate in controlling an external STB, compated to 100% reeliability of it controling itsown tuner.

 

(2) I think you are misguided. There is no 'murky world' in sourcing IP addresses. We are talking about criminal convictions, and if they do not use IP logs they will have no opportunity in successfully pursuing someone who denies viewing live broadcasts, when they actually do.

 

Further, following thier history of TV Detector vans, scouring the streets for actual TV usage is proof that they are pro active, and has largely been replaced by a much failed poscode reference list. Why on earth would they not use IP addresses? Since this gives the viewer the security of knowing they cannot be unjustly accused of viewing when they have not - and conversely, those that actually DO, something to worry about.

 

Since IP addresses can be harvested in this way, I actually support it, and is much more cost-effective than sending 1000s of letters on spec in the hope someone takes a guilt trip!

 

I disagree, firstly it is not clear whether the BBC can actually can actually tell the difference between someone who may watching a live broadcast or a catch up one.

 

There would also be data protection issues, which would surely require at least some kind of warning that your IP data will be collected and used.

 

Then what exactly do the BBC do with this IP address data ?. An IP address does not instantly identify you, they would first need get the name and address of the user from the ISP, this can only be obtained by a court order, again if you view the ACS thread, you will see that this is troublesome, some ISP's are refusing to play ball, they are not happy being given the role of internet policemen as it is, can you imagine their response if suddenly they were deluged with millions of requests from the BBC ?

 

As there is no instant 'IP to User Name & Address' database I think the logistics of it are not imposible but improbable.

 

Andy

[andydd]

You are convinently ignoring the similarities - the existing system only identified 'unlicenced addresses'. The 'unlicenced viewer' stems from THIS, so the IP address harvesting is precisely the way forward. It identifies the computer, (address) not the actual viewer. Since when you buy a TV your address details are forwarded as part of this purchasem, if this address is 'new' and shows up as unlicenced, this generated the comencement of the begging letters and enforcement visits.

 

As for 'data protection' issues, exempt. Surely you are aware that criminal activity, and enforcement of same takes precedence to the secrecy rights of the individual? Since the Music Industry is already in receipt of IP addresses of file sharers, there has been no criminal (only civil) concerns, yet ISP's happily provde the addresses to the legal firms pursuing such users. Again, no successful action against such firms for this disclosure.

 

Where there's a will..? It's working now (albeit unsatisfactorily) and the from packet sniffer tools I have, you can indeed see the difference between live streams and those that are not, so no problem either. The moral, if you need a licence, it's usually a good idea to get one.

 

But you are over looking the fact that there is no IP address > User Name & Address database, (what would be needed would be something similar to the DVLA database where every number plate can be quickly looked up and a registered owner located, at present there is no way to do something similar for IP address, only the lengthy Court>ISP>User process.)

 

Now whilst the Court>ISP>User process could work it would have to be done for every person who used iPlayer to watch a live stream which is clearly impractical.

 

Let me give you an example, both you and I log onto iPlayer to watch a program, the BBC could identify both our IP addresses, but it has no idea whether either of us is licenced or not (at this stage it only has an IP address, it has no idea of our identities or addresses), the only way to check if we have licences would be to find out our addresses & identities and check them against the licence database BUT and its a big BUT, the only way to get our identity & address from an IP is to follow the court>ISP>user process, which it could clearly do for two people, but it couldnt do it for the many 100,000's of people who use iPlayer every day.

 

So you can clearly see the only way it could possible work if there was some sort of national IP>User database run on similar lines to the DVLA one, this would have serious civil liberties concerns. (The DVLA database is often accussed of being abused by DCA's and car clamping companies for exemple).

 

Andy

[andydd]

Which wouldn't work either as not all IPs are static.

 

True..but (in theory) ISP's hold all the IP address that have been used and who there were (or still are allocated to).

[andydd]

It's missing the point...

 

when the music industry see people downloading files they can log an IP address. they can easily link this back to an ISP.

 

they then have the chance of just asking the ISP for the attached user details or going to court to force the ISP to give the attached user details.

 

it's illegal to download music, (unless it's from a on-line store), so the fact that the industry has your IP address logged downloading a file is proof that a crime has been committed.

 

 

?

 

 

I mostly agree with you with the exception of the above, an IP address isn't definative proof that a downloading 'crime' has been commited, firstly IP addresses maybe shared with many users in a home, perhaps many hundreds or thousands in a pub or office, they identify a location not a specific user, IP addresses used on torrent sites are commonly spoofed, proxies could be used to hide the actual user, plus wifi connections can be hacked (especially if left unsecured), there is also the possiblity of a mistake being made (perhaps just a single digit) along the process.

 

I still very much doubt whether the BBC would venture down the route of tracking down users who watch 'live tv' online, in fact I can see the licence fee being abolished before it happens.

 

Andy

[andydd]

Wow! A lot of information here. And it seems, at times, it goes round and round in circles

 

Anyway, I have had a visit from an enforcement officer. I will hold my hands up. I don't have a tv licence. I did a few months back, but fell behind with the payments. When I tried to get on my feet again, they wanted nearly £100 a months....for the arrears and advance. I tried to pay, and I failed.

 

I have recently joined a debt management thing, an dthe subject of the TV licence came up. So when the officer came, I explained I was in the process of arranging it. But I still had to sign a declaration, and he set me up with payment there and then.

 

Will I have to go to court though? I am worried, I don't want to go to court. I am begrudgingly willing to pay. But they don't make it easy for you!

 

You should never sign anything !..you are under no obligation too and these people are sneaky, next thing you know is that you signed a declaration saying you watch live tv and you have no licence !

 

Andy

[andydd]

But I did sign. I was taken by surprise. Not only had I recently written to the TV Licence people under the advice of my debt advisor, I was making a cup of tea and sorting the washing and getting my son's pudding! So, being caught off guard, I signed.

 

So what now?

 

Was it not explained exactly what you were signing ?...The trouble is you dont know what you signed (rather silly, it may say "I give all my money to the bloke with the clipboard" signed XX).

 

All I know is that signing the forms is usually an admission that you have a TV but no licence, there may be other reasons for signing but Im unaware of them.,

 

Little you can do now but sit back and wait, I suppose rushing out and buying a licence wouldnt hurt.

 

Andy