<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Thoughts on TV Licensing</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rooreynolds.com/2007/12/14/thoughts-on-tv-licensing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://rooreynolds.com/2007/12/14/thoughts-on-tv-licensing/</link>
	<description>What's Next?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:23:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tim</title>
		<link>http://rooreynolds.com/2007/12/14/thoughts-on-tv-licensing/comment-page-2/#comment-407475</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:35:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rooreynolds.com/2007/12/14/thoughts-on-tv-licensing/#comment-407475</guid>
		<description>If you have a black and white license, I understand they harrass you for not having a colour license.

The license is for the use of equipment for receiving &#039;live&#039; broadcast/simulcast. Since iPlayer for non-live doesn&#039;t need a license, it would be perverse to require a license for non-live Virgin, but it would be wise to seek a ruling first.

You could simply write to TVL for clarification as follows: do you need a license to subscribe to a mixed TV service like Virgin&#039;s which provides live and non-live content, if you don&#039;t watch the live content?

Virgin may keep records of what you&#039;ve watched - these could possibly be seized as evidence.

Tim</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you have a black and white license, I understand they harrass you for not having a colour license.</p>
<p>The license is for the use of equipment for receiving &#8216;live&#8217; broadcast/simulcast. Since iPlayer for non-live doesn&#8217;t need a license, it would be perverse to require a license for non-live Virgin, but it would be wise to seek a ruling first.</p>
<p>You could simply write to TVL for clarification as follows: do you need a license to subscribe to a mixed TV service like Virgin&#8217;s which provides live and non-live content, if you don&#8217;t watch the live content?</p>
<p>Virgin may keep records of what you&#8217;ve watched &#8211; these could possibly be seized as evidence.</p>
<p>Tim</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hannah</title>
		<link>http://rooreynolds.com/2007/12/14/thoughts-on-tv-licensing/comment-page-2/#comment-397377</link>
		<dc:creator>Hannah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:28:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rooreynolds.com/2007/12/14/thoughts-on-tv-licensing/#comment-397377</guid>
		<description>I want to watch the odd catch-up programme through my TV and Virgin box (my laptop broadband connection is rubbish), /after/ they are broadcast. I don&#039;t really want to pay a license (having just got rid of it), unless I had to, ie. if it was illegal to do so.

But the TVL say that you don&#039;t need a license to watch iPlayer, (as long as you&#039;re not watching live). And presumably this is the same for 4od and other services you can catch-up on online.

So, it seems quite a grey area using a Virgin box for catch-up that /can/ receive live broadcast...

...but aren&#039;t there plenty of people in this situation? And a growing number at that given the rise in on demand services? Shouldn&#039;t TVL/BBC spell it out?!

Even though it would seem to be legal, In the end I&#039;m probably going to leave the Virgin box disconnected. Yea, that&#039;s right! I&#039;m scared of those big bad bullies and their court threats! I don&#039;t want the hassle!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I want to watch the odd catch-up programme through my TV and Virgin box (my laptop broadband connection is rubbish), /after/ they are broadcast. I don&#8217;t really want to pay a license (having just got rid of it), unless I had to, ie. if it was illegal to do so.</p>
<p>But the TVL say that you don&#8217;t need a license to watch iPlayer, (as long as you&#8217;re not watching live). And presumably this is the same for 4od and other services you can catch-up on online.</p>
<p>So, it seems quite a grey area using a Virgin box for catch-up that /can/ receive live broadcast&#8230;</p>
<p>&#8230;but aren&#8217;t there plenty of people in this situation? And a growing number at that given the rise in on demand services? Shouldn&#8217;t TVL/BBC spell it out?!</p>
<p>Even though it would seem to be legal, In the end I&#8217;m probably going to leave the Virgin box disconnected. Yea, that&#8217;s right! I&#8217;m scared of those big bad bullies and their court threats! I don&#8217;t want the hassle!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ricky</title>
		<link>http://rooreynolds.com/2007/12/14/thoughts-on-tv-licensing/comment-page-2/#comment-393590</link>
		<dc:creator>Ricky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:36:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rooreynolds.com/2007/12/14/thoughts-on-tv-licensing/#comment-393590</guid>
		<description>If I was to puchase a TV License for a Black and White TV but used a Colour TV would they no or find out ? 

BTW - Colour TV Licence (£142.50)
Black and white TV Licence (£48.00)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If I was to puchase a TV License for a Black and White TV but used a Colour TV would they no or find out ? </p>
<p>BTW &#8211; Colour TV Licence (£142.50)<br />
Black and white TV Licence (£48.00)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kazzie</title>
		<link>http://rooreynolds.com/2007/12/14/thoughts-on-tv-licensing/comment-page-2/#comment-385783</link>
		<dc:creator>kazzie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 02:08:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rooreynolds.com/2007/12/14/thoughts-on-tv-licensing/#comment-385783</guid>
		<description>I have found some of the comments upon this site humouress, factual and advantageous in discovering how to defeat the TVL ... I thought we beat them in World War 11 ... oh no, sorry they were the gestapo/nazi&#039;s .... strange how TVL conjure up such images in ones mind :)

For those who say that the TVL do not still use detector vans, sorry but they do, I have the misfortune to stop briefly to answer a call outside a building and see a dreaded van depart the said premises :(

If only I have stopped a few feet further then I might have saved some innocent person being further harrassed by this disgraceful outfit .. oh well always another day to try. (ps they were leaving at about 3 pm ish) most likely to try to catch kids watching tv after school.

Anyway ..... Television Licences, do I really need one?

I must confess to actually owning several of these confounded machines, but this does not mean I necessarily need a licence.

I have one TV in my bedroom, which is connected to a DVD player, it&#039;s there if and when I ever choose to watch it. The TV is not connected to an ariel nor to any channels as such but is tuned to receive pictures from a small camera that shows any callers to my home. I presume that I am not required to have  licence for this TV.

I also own several small portable TV&#039;s that are stored within my loft space, I presume as none are plugged in to an electricity supply, and are not connected to any ariel, I do not need a licence for any of these either. 

I then own a TV that I use as a quad screen for my home based CCTV system, again this is not tuned into any television programmes and has no ariel, I presume no TV licence is required for this set.

I then own a small entryphone with video screen which is situated within my lounge to let me see any callers in advance of my considering to open the door to ascertain who they may be (I play safe and act dumb if I am unsure of the caller) so presume yet again I do not need a licence for this bit of telecommunication device.

I then have a 60&quot; wide projection screen, which does not have any kind of receiving equipment whatsoever, so that doesn&#039;t need a licence, 

Then I have a rather large TV ... which is capable of receiving television programmes, but is not connected to any ariel, or tuned into any channels but is connected to a Wii and a PS3, a DVD surround system and also serves as a pc. So I am guessing that as this is not tuned to any Television  Channels, and has no ariel connected it is also exempt under the present legislation. 

I am unsure of what the position is if I connect my Sky box to it, as then it is capable of receiving live TV broadcasts which is an iffy situation. its not illegal to own such equipment, just to watch it as it&#039;s being broadcast live.

As it is possible with a sky box, or virgin one to watch programmes on demand such as pay per view, you only require a licence to actually watch programmes that are broadcast to all, as pay per view,  is actually a mini home cinema and not a television broadcast.?

I then own a portable dvd player which is fitted inside my touring caravan, so this is exempt unless I add a freeview box to it to access tv channels, somehow I cant see TVL raiding every caravan site in the UK to check on all possible caravanners ..... they would stick out like a sore thumb lol.

Finally, I own an iMac which I use to view iplayer and others such as utube etc, and a laptop that I can also access these sorts of programmes upon.
I understand it is perfectly possible to download various programmes upon your pc, and then stream it to your TV or Monitor as it would be in such instances .... and as that is not being broadcast live or simultaneously as the terminology states, this too is exempt from requiring a TV Licence.

So all in all, I think I have the perfect solution to any future visits from TVL, yes they are writing to me with the standard threatening letter, but as I can see them approach my home a long time before they even get near the door (which wouldnt be opened anyway) Don&#039;t you just love CCTV, I guess I will just ignore their pathetic threats and continue to shred the letters as I have done to date.

Or am I doing something wrong?

kaz</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have found some of the comments upon this site humouress, factual and advantageous in discovering how to defeat the TVL &#8230; I thought we beat them in World War 11 &#8230; oh no, sorry they were the gestapo/nazi&#8217;s &#8230;. strange how TVL conjure up such images in ones mind :)</p>
<p>For those who say that the TVL do not still use detector vans, sorry but they do, I have the misfortune to stop briefly to answer a call outside a building and see a dreaded van depart the said premises :(</p>
<p>If only I have stopped a few feet further then I might have saved some innocent person being further harrassed by this disgraceful outfit .. oh well always another day to try. (ps they were leaving at about 3 pm ish) most likely to try to catch kids watching tv after school.</p>
<p>Anyway &#8230;.. Television Licences, do I really need one?</p>
<p>I must confess to actually owning several of these confounded machines, but this does not mean I necessarily need a licence.</p>
<p>I have one TV in my bedroom, which is connected to a DVD player, it&#8217;s there if and when I ever choose to watch it. The TV is not connected to an ariel nor to any channels as such but is tuned to receive pictures from a small camera that shows any callers to my home. I presume that I am not required to have  licence for this TV.</p>
<p>I also own several small portable TV&#8217;s that are stored within my loft space, I presume as none are plugged in to an electricity supply, and are not connected to any ariel, I do not need a licence for any of these either. </p>
<p>I then own a TV that I use as a quad screen for my home based CCTV system, again this is not tuned into any television programmes and has no ariel, I presume no TV licence is required for this set.</p>
<p>I then own a small entryphone with video screen which is situated within my lounge to let me see any callers in advance of my considering to open the door to ascertain who they may be (I play safe and act dumb if I am unsure of the caller) so presume yet again I do not need a licence for this bit of telecommunication device.</p>
<p>I then have a 60&#8243; wide projection screen, which does not have any kind of receiving equipment whatsoever, so that doesn&#8217;t need a licence, </p>
<p>Then I have a rather large TV &#8230; which is capable of receiving television programmes, but is not connected to any ariel, or tuned into any channels but is connected to a Wii and a PS3, a DVD surround system and also serves as a pc. So I am guessing that as this is not tuned to any Television  Channels, and has no ariel connected it is also exempt under the present legislation. </p>
<p>I am unsure of what the position is if I connect my Sky box to it, as then it is capable of receiving live TV broadcasts which is an iffy situation. its not illegal to own such equipment, just to watch it as it&#8217;s being broadcast live.</p>
<p>As it is possible with a sky box, or virgin one to watch programmes on demand such as pay per view, you only require a licence to actually watch programmes that are broadcast to all, as pay per view,  is actually a mini home cinema and not a television broadcast.?</p>
<p>I then own a portable dvd player which is fitted inside my touring caravan, so this is exempt unless I add a freeview box to it to access tv channels, somehow I cant see TVL raiding every caravan site in the UK to check on all possible caravanners &#8230;.. they would stick out like a sore thumb lol.</p>
<p>Finally, I own an iMac which I use to view iplayer and others such as utube etc, and a laptop that I can also access these sorts of programmes upon.<br />
I understand it is perfectly possible to download various programmes upon your pc, and then stream it to your TV or Monitor as it would be in such instances &#8230;. and as that is not being broadcast live or simultaneously as the terminology states, this too is exempt from requiring a TV Licence.</p>
<p>So all in all, I think I have the perfect solution to any future visits from TVL, yes they are writing to me with the standard threatening letter, but as I can see them approach my home a long time before they even get near the door (which wouldnt be opened anyway) Don&#8217;t you just love CCTV, I guess I will just ignore their pathetic threats and continue to shred the letters as I have done to date.</p>
<p>Or am I doing something wrong?</p>
<p>kaz</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: papalon</title>
		<link>http://rooreynolds.com/2007/12/14/thoughts-on-tv-licensing/comment-page-2/#comment-338940</link>
		<dc:creator>papalon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:12:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rooreynolds.com/2007/12/14/thoughts-on-tv-licensing/#comment-338940</guid>
		<description>Why  is  it that the tvl just wont accept  some people dont  watch tv,  they think we are  either liars  thiefs or just plain mad</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why  is  it that the tvl just wont accept  some people dont  watch tv,  they think we are  either liars  thiefs or just plain mad</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roo</title>
		<link>http://rooreynolds.com/2007/12/14/thoughts-on-tv-licensing/comment-page-2/#comment-262917</link>
		<dc:creator>Roo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Mar 2009 22:44:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rooreynolds.com/2007/12/14/thoughts-on-tv-licensing/#comment-262917</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;&quot;It is only required to have a licence to view B.B.C. programmes&quot;&lt;/i&gt;

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;No&lt;/a&gt;. That&#039;s not actually true.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>&#8220;It is only required to have a licence to view B.B.C. programmes&#8221;</i></p>
<p><a href="http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/" rel="nofollow">No</a>. That&#8217;s not actually true.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean dobson.bc.dmm</title>
		<link>http://rooreynolds.com/2007/12/14/thoughts-on-tv-licensing/comment-page-2/#comment-262902</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean dobson.bc.dmm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Mar 2009 22:34:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rooreynolds.com/2007/12/14/thoughts-on-tv-licensing/#comment-262902</guid>
		<description>I am a little confused by the reply from THELAW.It is only required to have a licence to view B.B.C. programmes,if these broadcasts were blocked,how could you be prosecuted for watching or recording any none B.B.C. broadcast?what would be the offence since you are not required to have a licence to watch or record programmes from other T.V. services.My question was,can the B.B.C. signal be blocked so that you can watch and record programmes from other T.V. services without the T.V.L.A. having a leg to stand on? Why should i have to pay a compulsary licence fee to the B.B.C.? I think that the quality of B.B.C. programmes is so low that they would insult the intelligence of a set of mess tins and i now watch only one B.B.C. programme a day,as from Monday this will go down to zero.The B.B.C. produce the same types of programmes as the commercial channels,why would they do anything else when there is a compulsary licence fee in place? The difference is that unlike the B.B.C.,i do not have to pay directly for c**p i do not watch.Yes,i do know we pay in the shops for the advertising costs.Why can the B.B.C. not be made a subscription service such as sky and others that would solve the problem for everybody who resents paying a compulsary licence for programmes that are similer and no better,often worse,than those produced by the commercial T.V. stations.If the B.B.C.  were not running so many digital channels that nobody watches and paying obscence fees to some presenters with OUR MONEY,then maybe they could produce higher quality programmes for B.B.C, 1 and 2. Perhaps some smart Barrister could take the question of the compulsary licence fee to the European Court Of Justice?The B.B.C. might just as well be commercial given the numbers of trailers it runs for it&#039;s own programmes and they have admitted that there will be more repeats,more! have you seen the schedules lately?More game shows,more quize shows,in fact,more of the c**p they currently show.Why should we be forced to pay for this?If the B.B.C.was forced to become a subscription service,unless they got rid of all these &quot;jobs for the boys&quot; digital channels and the obscene fees,unless they started to produce far better programmes,they would loose millions of viewers and they know it which is why they want the compulsary licence fee to remain in place.Sean Dobson.BC.DMM</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am a little confused by the reply from THELAW.It is only required to have a licence to view B.B.C. programmes,if these broadcasts were blocked,how could you be prosecuted for watching or recording any none B.B.C. broadcast?what would be the offence since you are not required to have a licence to watch or record programmes from other T.V. services.My question was,can the B.B.C. signal be blocked so that you can watch and record programmes from other T.V. services without the T.V.L.A. having a leg to stand on? Why should i have to pay a compulsary licence fee to the B.B.C.? I think that the quality of B.B.C. programmes is so low that they would insult the intelligence of a set of mess tins and i now watch only one B.B.C. programme a day,as from Monday this will go down to zero.The B.B.C. produce the same types of programmes as the commercial channels,why would they do anything else when there is a compulsary licence fee in place? The difference is that unlike the B.B.C.,i do not have to pay directly for c**p i do not watch.Yes,i do know we pay in the shops for the advertising costs.Why can the B.B.C. not be made a subscription service such as sky and others that would solve the problem for everybody who resents paying a compulsary licence for programmes that are similer and no better,often worse,than those produced by the commercial T.V. stations.If the B.B.C.  were not running so many digital channels that nobody watches and paying obscence fees to some presenters with OUR MONEY,then maybe they could produce higher quality programmes for B.B.C, 1 and 2. Perhaps some smart Barrister could take the question of the compulsary licence fee to the European Court Of Justice?The B.B.C. might just as well be commercial given the numbers of trailers it runs for it&#8217;s own programmes and they have admitted that there will be more repeats,more! have you seen the schedules lately?More game shows,more quize shows,in fact,more of the c**p they currently show.Why should we be forced to pay for this?If the B.B.C.was forced to become a subscription service,unless they got rid of all these &#8220;jobs for the boys&#8221; digital channels and the obscene fees,unless they started to produce far better programmes,they would loose millions of viewers and they know it which is why they want the compulsary licence fee to remain in place.Sean Dobson.BC.DMM</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: thelaw</title>
		<link>http://rooreynolds.com/2007/12/14/thoughts-on-tv-licensing/comment-page-2/#comment-260179</link>
		<dc:creator>thelaw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:15:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rooreynolds.com/2007/12/14/thoughts-on-tv-licensing/#comment-260179</guid>
		<description>Sean, the TV license does not give you permission to watch BBC broadcasts, it gives you permission to watch *any* broadcasts.

The law is that if you watch live broadcasts, you must own a TV license, whether those broadcasts are BBC, ITV, Channel4 or whatever.  It&#039;s irrelevant that the money goes to the BBC, without a license, you aren&#039;t allowed to watch other channels either.

If you don&#039;t want to buy a TV license, then don&#039;t.  These days, there&#039;s plenty of content available for free online.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sean, the TV license does not give you permission to watch BBC broadcasts, it gives you permission to watch *any* broadcasts.</p>
<p>The law is that if you watch live broadcasts, you must own a TV license, whether those broadcasts are BBC, ITV, Channel4 or whatever.  It&#8217;s irrelevant that the money goes to the BBC, without a license, you aren&#8217;t allowed to watch other channels either.</p>
<p>If you don&#8217;t want to buy a TV license, then don&#8217;t.  These days, there&#8217;s plenty of content available for free online.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sean dobson.bc.dmm</title>
		<link>http://rooreynolds.com/2007/12/14/thoughts-on-tv-licensing/comment-page-2/#comment-260160</link>
		<dc:creator>sean dobson.bc.dmm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:25:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rooreynolds.com/2007/12/14/thoughts-on-tv-licensing/#comment-260160</guid>
		<description>Does anybody know if it is possible to get the bbc to block all bbc t.v. programmes being received at my address so that i no longer have to pay a licence fee for programmes i do not watch.i watch one programme a day from the intire bbc t.v. output,i will not be watching ANY when this programme ends it&#039;s run and in any event i could watch it the next day on the bbc i player.In my opinion,the programmes broadcast by the bbc on t.v.would insult the intelligence of a set of mess tins,why should i be forced to pay for c**p i have no disire to watch? why can we not have the option not to receive bbc t.v. broadcasts and so not be forced to pay a licence fee for programmes i/we do not want to watch?i am sure tv sets could be made that do not receive bbc t.v.programmes,this would make it easy to prove that you do not view live bbc t.v. broadcasts.To get back to my original question,is it possible for the bbc to block it&#039;s t.v.signals to a stated address or could they send some one round who could block t.v.sets from receiving live t.v. broadcasts.Sean.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does anybody know if it is possible to get the bbc to block all bbc t.v. programmes being received at my address so that i no longer have to pay a licence fee for programmes i do not watch.i watch one programme a day from the intire bbc t.v. output,i will not be watching ANY when this programme ends it&#8217;s run and in any event i could watch it the next day on the bbc i player.In my opinion,the programmes broadcast by the bbc on t.v.would insult the intelligence of a set of mess tins,why should i be forced to pay for c**p i have no disire to watch? why can we not have the option not to receive bbc t.v. broadcasts and so not be forced to pay a licence fee for programmes i/we do not want to watch?i am sure tv sets could be made that do not receive bbc t.v.programmes,this would make it easy to prove that you do not view live bbc t.v. broadcasts.To get back to my original question,is it possible for the bbc to block it&#8217;s t.v.signals to a stated address or could they send some one round who could block t.v.sets from receiving live t.v. broadcasts.Sean.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: anon</title>
		<link>http://rooreynolds.com/2007/12/14/thoughts-on-tv-licensing/comment-page-2/#comment-239270</link>
		<dc:creator>anon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Feb 2009 21:08:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rooreynolds.com/2007/12/14/thoughts-on-tv-licensing/#comment-239270</guid>
		<description>Umm... I don&#039;t think that&#039;s sneaky, or a change in the policy. I think that&#039;s pretty much in line with what everything above says, Mr Loftus. A TV licence is required to watch live TV (whether that&#039;s using the new feature of iPlayer or any other mechanism).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Umm&#8230; I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s sneaky, or a change in the policy. I think that&#8217;s pretty much in line with what everything above says, Mr Loftus. A TV licence is required to watch live TV (whether that&#8217;s using the new feature of iPlayer or any other mechanism).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
