By Andy McCue, 13 June 2006 13:30
NEWS
The UK's TV Licensing (TVL) authority has responded to criticism from silicon.com readers over its warning that people watching online BBC broadcasts on a PC face stiff fines if they don't have a TV licence.
TVL issued the warning last week on the eve of the World Cup finals in Germany, which the BBC is broadcasting live online as well as on TV.
That provoked a furious response from many silicon.com readers. One IT consultant, who wished to remain anonymous, said: "If the BBC chooses to broadcast on an international medium, why should the national licence-payer subsidise this?"
Other readers claimed that a pure internet feed not involving a tuner and received by a computer is not covered by TV licensing legislation and therefore does not require a TV licence to watch it.
But TVL told silicon.com that the definition of a "television receiver" is contained in regulation nine of the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 and covers any apparatus used for the purpose of receiving - by wireless telegraphy or otherwise - any TV programme service.
TVL said this means the TV licensing regulations cover internet broadcasts on PCs, PDAs and mobile phones but said this would not be an issue for most people as it is covered by the standard household TV licence.
A TVL spokeswoman said: "A valid licence entitles the licence holder and anyone who lives with them to watch live television on any device at that address, for example on a television set or on a PC, and on any device powered solely by its internal batteries, such as mobile phones or PDAs, away from home."
The same single licence rule also applies to businesses, except hotels, which have different licensing requirements.
The TVL spokeswoman was unable to give a breakdown of prosecutions by device but said it has caught and fined licence-fee evaders using PCs to watch TV in the past.
Comments
There are 19 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
The question here is not whether PCs, mobiles and PDAs constitute television receivers, but whether the streamed content constitutes a television programme service.
Also this opens a whole further can of worms. If I plug my lattop into the mains whilst I am away from home and stream video content, my TV at home should be powered off. What if there is more than one laptop plugged into the mains belonging to the same household?
Also why are TV companies not giving warnings about licensing on thier streams?
2. John Snow
I've just fired off this email to the TV Licensing Authority:
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/index.jsp
I note from your FAQ page that if I only use "a TV to watch videos/DVDs/as a monitor for my games console?" then I would need to "notify [you] in writing that this is the case and one [your] Enforcement Officers may need to visit [me] to confirm that [I] do not need a licence."
Will you be extending this advice to include anyone with a computer connected to the internet now that the BBC is broadcasting material via its website? This BBC story refers:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5074406.stm
"Firms that let staff watch the World Cup on broadband could be fined £1,000 if they do not hold a TV licence."
Since any internet connected PC is now capable of receiving television broadcasts, applying the same logic, I would assume the onus is on the computer owner to contact you to advise they are NOT using it as such?
Or will you be changing your advice to TV owners who do not use them for viewing broadcasts?
Thank you.
3. anonymous
I wonder if the BBC is going to extend this draconian enforcement to recipients of it's services through the web across the globe? The british licence payer currently pays for the free services to people outside of the UK now it seems that we are to be persecuted and penalised for using services that are free outside of the UK.
4. Jon Pennycook
This is not necessarily the BBC's fault.
Look at http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/aboutus/index.jsp
"The majority of the administration of TV Licensing is contracted to Capita Business Services Ltd, with the administration of cash easy payment schemes contracted to Revenue Management Services Ltd, and marketing and public relations activities contracted to the AMV Consortium. "
"Who decides how much the licence fee is?
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport sets the amount of the licence fee and decides who needs one and for what equipment."
5. anonymous
Regarding the TV Act
There does not appear to be a definition of what a 'televison broadcast service' is within the act.
It would appear that the act only covers same-time transmissions. Would it for instance cover podcasting?
The act also doesn't appear to cover non-uk sourced transmissions.
6. Ainsley
WRT to the last comment about financing viewing for those outside of the UK, it is utter rubbish. The BBC streams are blocked for all those outside of the UK (unless they pay for a UK-based proxy) - much to the frustration of the UK's expat community. I know that many of my friends and colleagues would be happy to pay for the BBC service should it be made available in this way.
However, the concept of a standard TV license for web streaming is incompatible and the BBC should be allowed to offer pay services on this medium like every other company.
7. confused
Portable TV's.
I have checked the TVL website and although it does not implicitly deal with battery powered portable TV's (handheld), it does state that if you are a student and your tv is powered purely by batteries, than it is covered under your normal home licence, so long as it does not run off the mains electricity - in which case you need your own TV Licence
Surely then a PDA / laptop / phone, running off batteries alone (when veiwing) should be covered by the same rules? A Laptop with a TV tuner card must be in this category surely?
Or are TVL trying to gain revenue from the mains powered devices that can help to receive these broadcasts - routers/modems etc......
8. anonymous
I'm not sure I understad the difference between a web "broadcast" and viewing other web video recordings as a stream. "Live" is seldom actually live with encoding and various other delays.
This TVLA ruling is an example of how badly governemt and our civil service actually understand evolving technology and how desperately they are trying to keep control of an uncontrollable medium where the neat, simple definitions of "broadcast" and "television" are going to become more and more blurred.
The only logical step for them is to attempt to apply some form of licence fee to all ISP subscriptions, or spy on/meter who is accessing what on their devices.
Great! Another tax.
9. Warren Swaine
Firstly there does appear to be a subclass of Silicon reader who is using this stick to beat the BBC with. Although TVL collect money on behalf of the BBC they are completely separate organisations. Personally I think the licence fee is too low, which is why I supplement the BBC coffers by buying every available new Doctor Who ;0)
However, whoever threw up the can of worms argument is not far off the truth.
Following my comments yesterday, I did some more checking with the relevant acts and yes, live streaming content is covered by the catch all TVL mention in the regulations. However, the Act's definition of a Television Programme Service and the licencing of broadcasters means that everyone operating a live web cam connected to the internet which can be connected to by "the public" is guilty of broadcasting without a licence. Sandi Thom's celebrated "live from the basement" gigs are under this act illegal if the internet is classed as a broadcast medium as TVL insist. I'm pretty sure she's not a licenced broadcaster! Offering non-live material such as video downloads or delayed streaming is not covered by the law.
And I might just try this out... if you plug in a laptop on a train to the onboard power supply, the train operating company is guilty of allowing you to use an unlicenced "television receiver" on their premises. Unplug it and you are covered by your home licence!
A journalist could have some fun with this story if they wanted to!!!
10. Michael Dixon.
But how do I avoid paying for all the increased costs incurred by advertising when I do not watch ITV?
11. anonymous
Im curious to know how they can detect the use of such devices. As at present detectors search for the osolation within TV's. However on PC's which connect via broadband or GPRS for that matter dont.
Are the TVL trying to put forward an urban myth that they can detect everything and propogate a big brothers watching you idea inorder that people dont flaunt the lack of such a license.
12. Richard
Unworkable ... if true!
There's no such thing as a TV licence for mobile or portable TVs: A Licence is issued only for a specific fixed address.
Whenever a TV is used outside that address, unless it runs purely on internal batteries and antenna, that new address needs a TV licence.
So, if a customer uses Wi-Fi on their laptop to watch TV while recharging its batteries from the mains, eg. at a coffee shop, TVL claims that someone must have an appropriate TV licence for that location. (Presumably not just a domestic type licence?)
What about someone in a nearby car park, watching TV while their laptop is powered from the car?
What about someone using one of those Net connected park benches which provides Net & power?
What about PCs & laptops in libraries? etc. etc. etc.
*If true* this is as unworkable as the old licence which used to be required for every car radio: That was so silly and petty that it was eventually scrapped.
This fiasco highlights the need to scrap the whole TV licensing industry and fund true public service broadcasting properly from general taxation.
13. no2id campaigner
What a load of .... So if you use webcasts you need a TV licence ?!
14. galley slave#41
So the TVL is still trying to hijack the internet.
Can they not understand that if something is put onto the internet the concept is that it is free and without restriction or controls for all to enjoy.
If the British TV companies and the TVL can't accept this then they must stop uploading the material onto the free service.
If people using a service on their computer that needs a tuner then that is a different matter altogether, but quite why anybody would want to, given that monitor picture quality is poor compared with that of a TV receiver is beyond me!
Going to court over any licencing matter in the U.K cannot be won by a member of the public, the establishment will see to that. but an appeal to a higher court in the E.U should produce the desired result
why? I hear you ask. Well this problem has already arisen in other European countries and been settled.
But remember the TVL can only get away with this if we let them
so it is up to us to moderate their excesses.
15. Antony Norris
Answer to Curious...
To find out if you are watching TV on your computer, or even on your television, they have this ingenious contraption, called... a question.
It goes something like this "Hello Sir (or Madam) are you currently watching TV?" If you reply, "Yes" and you don't have a licence you're toast. If you say "No" and answer no further clever questioning, and as long as they can't see the TV (or computer) through the door or window, they have to go away and bother someone else.
Clever huh?
16. Andrew Robb
Is anyone watching a DVD of a TV show on a device with a mains adaptor (PC/console) away from home breaking the law?
Or, does the show magically cease to be a TV show if placed on DVD with the permission of the copyright holder?
One more thing for managers to worry about - no watching of DVDs on company computers...
17. anonymous
The Licencing laws in the UK are stupid.
Any pretence that the TV licence is a 'receiving' licence is beyond belief - I'd like to see how a receiving licence, which is actually used to pay for a single corporation stands up to European Law.
18. anonymous
The Licencing laws in the UK are stupid.
Any pretence that the TV licence is a 'receiving' licence is beyond belief - I'd like to see how a receiving licence, which is actually used to pay for a single corporation stands up to European Law.
19. Fred Perkins
The TVLA by its action has done a wonderful job in supporting the arguments from those who say it's time to stop the BBC's never-ending desire to dominate all forms of media. There is an industry growing up around the BBC, and licence payers should not be funding the BBC's ambitions any more than they should be funding Google's.
Attacking those who receive video content on PCs (what's a "TV programme" nowadays?) shows the hopelessness of the current licensing regime as a means of funding the BBC. Does a company offering video from a .tv website therefore become a TV broadcaster ?