Going without a TV licence
- Thread starter clv101
- Start date
TV requires a tuning circuit. They're all based on the superheterodyne principle - they need a local oscillator signal to mix with the output from the tuner to generate a fixed intermediate frequency that the rest of the tuning circuit is very sensitive to and can amplifiy a huge amount without causing any feedback - quite an ingenious invention. Before it, you just had to have bigger and bigger aerials and transmitters and higher power transmissions. Any amplification resulted in feedback.
Back to the point - the path back up the aerial isn't filtered, nothing is blocked. The Local Oscillator frequency will leak straight back up your aerial. Anyone with the right equipment can tell the freqency it's operating at as you're essentially broadcasting it - and hence not only tell you you're watching TV, they can even tell you what channel (analogue) or multiplex (digital) you're tuned to.
This said, the evidence isn't admissible in court. It's far more useful just to blanket people with letters and scare them into paying.
What? :-/
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030021_en_34#pt4-l1g363
The BBC have a hell of a lot to do with the TV Licence but it's not just their channels/associated channels that you need a licence, it's any live broadcast TV.
If you want a summary of that in a couple of paragraphs it basically comes down to:
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/index.jsp
But I thought I'd put the Communications Act up there because I can see people calling TV Licensing biased but you can't exactly argue with the act they get their information from
Last edited:
Tis true. And I believe the other channels get bits of it on occasion too - Channel 4 was rumoured to be getting some to help with its digital switchover.
As has been said, you don't have to have a license for owning a tv - just for watching broadcasts. Detune it an use it for your DVD/Video/Consoles by all means.
Why do you consider this person to be a crackpot?
this is why
he hasnt. He consider that he doesnt need to, he states somewhere on the website, why in his oppininon that its not a legal requirement.
just ring them and put and end to it for goodness sake. But he actually enjoys the confrontation with TVL. I bet if he just rang them and told they'd leave him alone.
Last edited:
Couple of things:
1. Licensing enforcement is their job, not ours. We are under no legal obligation to help in any way. Until they acquire a warrant and serve it with a police officer you don't even have to acknowledge their existence. That's not opinion, that is the law, and even the BBC admit it in their FOI answers. Why should we have to pay/spend our time to phone/write to do their job for them?
2. Many people don't like confrontation. For those it's easy - phone them and explain the situation, and that's the end of it? Riiiiiight! Apart from the visit from an enforcement agent to 'confirm your story' you will still receive all the threatening letters unles you are really lucky. A friend of mine is in this boat and has 5 years' worth of correspondence.
3. It's not all bad. My wife's place was rented. It's now empty and we let them know. They thanked us for the call and updated their records to reflect this. We haven't heard from them since, result! We will get an 'update' letter some time over the next 3 years to confirm the place is still empty, but that's it. So not too arduous.
Bottom line?
The OP does not require a license.
He is under no legal obligation to correspond with TV licensing.
His life may be easier if he deals with them - but as my mate will tell him, he will be lied to, bullied and threatened before they get the message and leave him alone
However, if he finds the tone and style of the TV agency offensive and insulting then he can cause them enormous expense and have a giggle along the way by playing them at their own game - let's be honest -Sticking it to 'the man' is hugely rewarding, especially when you are in the right!
1. Licensing enforcement is their job, not ours. We are under no legal obligation to help in any way. Until they acquire a warrant and serve it with a police officer you don't even have to acknowledge their existence. That's not opinion, that is the law, and even the BBC admit it in their FOI answers. Why should we have to pay/spend our time to phone/write to do their job for them?
2. Many people don't like confrontation. For those it's easy - phone them and explain the situation, and that's the end of it? Riiiiiight! Apart from the visit from an enforcement agent to 'confirm your story' you will still receive all the threatening letters unles you are really lucky. A friend of mine is in this boat and has 5 years' worth of correspondence.
3. It's not all bad. My wife's place was rented. It's now empty and we let them know. They thanked us for the call and updated their records to reflect this. We haven't heard from them since, result!
We will get an 'update' letter some time over the next 3 years to confirm the place is still empty, but that's it. So not too arduous.Bottom line?
The OP does not require a license.
He is under no legal obligation to correspond with TV licensing.
His life may be easier if he deals with them - but as my mate will tell him, he will be lied to, bullied and threatened before they get the message and leave him alone
However, if he finds the tone and style of the TV agency offensive and insulting then he can cause them enormous expense and have a giggle along the way by playing them at their own game - let's be honest -Sticking it to 'the man' is hugely rewarding, especially when you are in the right!
Excellent explaination.
I guess it wouldn't work in a block of flats with loads of antennas in close proximity.
sid
With the right technology (Tempest) you can read what is on someone's scree from the emissions emitted from the back of the screen. So it is feasibly that someone could track your viewing this way. That is largely irrelevant though as they cannot use this 'evidence' in court so it is of no use. As mentioned on the site above, look at the way speed cameras are open to public scrutiny, but the TV licensing agency refuses to divulge the details of their magic technology... riiiiiiiiight 
t
t