Grounding an Appliance

[SUNRAY]

This is the problem with the internet. Anyone can make up anything they like and present it as fact.

9.—[F1(1) Subject to paragraph (2), in Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), “television receiver” means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise)—

(a)any television programme service, or

(b)an on-demand programme service which is provided by the BBC,

Thank you. I think that dovetails nicely with:

When did the rules change?

Last time I was in contact with TV licensing it was required to receive all radio broadcasted TV channels [sat & freeview] and some [presumably BBC] streamed services.

 

[SUNRAY]

Not having a TV licence doesn't stop you from having a TV without a licence in other ways too. If there is no aerial or dish connected to it therefore it's incapable of receiving a broadcast altogether then it becomes a monitor that you can use to watch DVD Films for example. You can't watch a program via the bbc iPlayer either though, but you can watch other streaming services and the ITV Hub etc.

Indeed, and 4 of these:

In the last 2 years I've purchased 7 TV's

were not even tuned to receive or connected to any form of receiver.

 

[JohnW2]

(a)any television programme service, or
(b)an on-demand programme service which is provided by the BBC,

As written (and punctuated), that appears to imply that "...which is provided by the BBC" applies only to (b) - which, if true would mean that (a) related to 'a television service' provided by anyone, not just the BBC. Is that the intended meaning??

Kind Regards, John

 

[BS3036]

As written (and punctuated), that appears to imply that "...which is provided by the BBC" applies only to (b) - which, if true would mean that (a) related to 'a television service' provided by anyone, not just the BBC. Is that the intended meaning??

Kind Regards, John

Yes.

 

[BS3036]

Anybody can go and read the law free of charge. There is no need to speculate.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

As far as i'm aware you only need a TV Licence if your TV / device is tuned to receive bbc channels even if you don't watch bbc channels.

So if your TV or device is sophisticated enough you could disable bbc channels or manually retune all bbc channels to some other channel or frequency. Then you can use that TV / device to watch NON BBC channels without the need to have a TV Licence.

So when someone knocks on your door and says you're watching TV without a TV licence you can prove to them that you're not watching nor is the TV or device capable of receiving a BBC broadcast. No licence required.

That is not the case...

You need a TV licence for television reception, whether that by by satellite or terrestrial and no matter what channels you watch. You can use a TV without a licence, but only for recorded or streamed material, though you need one for watching BBC material.

 

[JohnW2]

Anybody can go and read the law free of charge. There is no need to speculate.

Speculation is not quite the right word, but 'the law' has been known to be unintentionally unclear, or ambiguous - which is why I asked about the intended meaning of what you quoted.

Kind Regards, John

 

[BS3036]

Speculation is not quite the right word, but 'the law' has been known to be unintentionally unclear, or ambiguous - which is why I asked about the intended meaning of what you quoted.

Kind Regards, John

Obviously it was not I who wrote it, but it seems totally unambiguous to me.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes.

What is the 'justification' for that? I thought the intended purpose of the licence fee was solely to fund the BBC?

... and, come to think of it, if they are widening the scope to cover the reception of programmes broadcast by any provider why is (b) ["an on-demand programme service which is provided by the BBC"] restricted to just BBC on-demand services, I wonder?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Obviously it was not I who wrote it, but it seems totally unambiguous to me.

It is totally unambiguous "as written" but, as I said, it is far from unknown for the wording/punctuation of legislation to convey a meaning which differs from the intent of the legislators - which, as I said, is why I asked for confirmation.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

That is not the case...

You need a TV licence for television reception, whether that by by satellite or terrestrial and no matter what channels you watch. You can use a TV without a licence, but only for recorded or streamed material, though you need one for watching BBC material.

Care needed there, it certainly used to be specified that recordings made from a broadcast and then played elsewhere required the alternative location to also being licensed.

 

[BS3036]

What is the 'justification' for that? I thought the intended purpose of the licence fee was solely to fund the BBC?

... and, come to think of it, if they are widening the scope to cover the reception of programmes broadcast by any provider why is (b) ["an on-demand programme service which is provided by the BBC"] restricted to just BBC on-demand services, I wonder?

Kind Regards, John

That is the law, and that is how it has been for the 50 years that I can recall. It's rather late to start questioning it now. Naturally the additional part b) was written much later and may reflects the thinking at the time it was added. The BBC are in the gradual process of requiring a proof of licence for the on-line presence, so it's not so important for on-line access.
Originally the law makers decided that anyone buying a television receiver would be likely to claim that they only watched ITV when visited, so didn't need a licence, so they did not frame the law that way, as it gave an excessively easy get-out.

 

[JohnW2]

That is the law, and that is how it has been for the 50 years that I can recall. It's rather late to start questioning it now.

I would imagine that, when the law was initially written, BBC was all there was, so it was much simpler.

Naturally the additional part b) was written much later and may reflects the thinking at the time it was added.

That part actually makes sense, if one regards the license as existing to fund the BBC. However, as I observed, they presumably could (but didn't) make it as wide as part (a) had they so wished.

Originally the law makers decided that anyone buying a television receiver would be likely to claim that they only watched ITV when visited, so didn't need a licence, so they did not frame the law that way, as it gave an excessively easy get-out.

I presume that must have been a subsequent revision because, as above, I presume that "originally" there was nothing but the BBC to consider (and no excuse for having a TV other than to watch BBC broadcasts). Anyway, it would presumably still be possible to claim that, although one has a TV, one does not use it for accessing any broadcast material or any BBC on-demand service (i.e. only for non-BBC internet-based material or for legitimate recordings) - indeed in this day and age that would probably be a more credible (more commonly true) attempt at a 'get out' than was the case when there was only BBC and ITV to consider, wouldn't it?

In any event, as I wrote earlier, I think that the whole concept of a 'TV licence' has become outdated - and that remains the case regardless of what the revenue is being used for (if not only to fund the BBC).

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

That would be true of an RF transciever but, as for the legalities, I would have thought that the manufacturers of such things could get their products 'type-licensed' to use such frequencies- just as (I presume) the manufacturers of mobile phones do, couldn't they?

No, because they qwould be transmitting on frequencies licensed to the network operator(s) without a licence from the operator(s). See below ...

However, for the OP's situation, I was thinking of hardwiring it to his GSM modem/whatever, which would not involve any re-transmission.

Indeed, but I was answering your specific comment that "presumably mobile repeaters must exist" - and I assumed you meant the sort of device I was talking about. Something hardwired to the OPs router would not be a "mobile repeater".

If I understand what the OP wants, I'm not seeing any difference in operation between it and MIFI - Mobile (w)ifi. A mobile sim in a gadget which provides a wifi access point ...

Correct. They are all pretty much the same in basic principles - it's just the specifics (e.g. presence of ethernet ports) that differs between models.

Effectively the 'repeater' acts just like a phone but instead of having a microphone and loudspeaker [and all the other bits/facilities] it has another base station attached to it which then talks to the users phone to negotiate a working frequency.

That's not how the ones I've experienced work. They did no conversion - simply repeated the RF signal as-is between inside and outside.

One of the companies I worked for owned a fully licenced portable mobile phone 'repeater' as much of our work was in basements where phone coverage was non existant. All we had to do was get a NOV for each deployment.
Our phones had to be registered to it to prevent it being used and therefore monopolised by other users, it confused the hell out of them as they saw full signal but had no service, whereas we did.

Ah, different type of device. As I say, the ones I have come across were in an emergency planning office - and the idea of only working for registered phones would not have been acceptable. Just consider the complications when "something happens", and various services all pile into the EPU (emergency planning unit) to do their co-ordinated response - and everyone has to wait while their phones are registered.

I have now had a reply from the manufacturer about the Ground Screw.... It needs wiring up to a ground spike to protect the equipment and me from a lightning strike.

It wouldn't protect either the equipment or you It would help by discharging some of the charge in the cloud (that's the primary function of lightning rods), but a direct strike would leave the equipment (and anyone close by) looking a bit frazzled.

My understanding is that all such devices require a licence to use, however i believe that the end user, me, you and everybody else are automatically licenced when agreeing to T&C'c with a product service provider.

That is correct. When you sign up for a service, it is the mobile network operator that's granting you permission to use the frequencies for which they hold an exclusive licence.

Anyway, it would presumably still be possible to claim that, although one has a TV, one does not use it for accessing any broadcast material or any BBC on-demand service (i.e. only for non-BBC internet-based material or for legitimate recordings) - indeed in this day and age that would probably be a more credible (more commonly true) attempt at a 'get out' than was the case when there was only BBC and ITV to consider, wouldn't it?

Correct, if your TV is not connected to an aerial then no licence needed - subject to the new bit about watching live streaming.
At my last employer, we bought a number of large TVs for a customer to use as displays in their shops. Not long afterwards we started getting the snottygrams from TV Licensing.

In any event, as I wrote earlier, I think that the whole concept of a 'TV licence' has become outdated - and that remains the case regardless of what the revenue is being used for (if not only to fund the BBC).

That's a whole new discussion, but I respectfully disagree. If we want to see what TV would be like without the BBC funded by a licence as it is now - just look across to the USA. Once all channels have to compete for advertising, then it comes down to a "bums on seats" numbers game, and a race to the bottom in terms of cheap popular rubbish.
By having at least one channel not forced to chase the bums on seats as the sole definition of "success", it holds the standards up such that the other channels have to compete.

Just my 2d worth.

 

[BS3036]

That's a whole new discussion, but I respectfully disagree. If we want to see what TV would be like without the BBC funded by a licence as it is now - just look across to the USA. Once all channels have to compete for advertising, then it comes down to a "bums on seats" numbers game, and a race to the bottom in terms of cheap popular rubbish.
By having at least one channel not forced to chase the bums on seats as the sole definition of "success", it holds the standards up such that the other channels have to compete.

Thank you for saying this. I agree 100%. If we ever reach the state of TV that the Americans have (which I know from personal experience) we will probably never turn on a TV again. Not that we do that often but enough is enough.