|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cell Phones in Great Britain > May 2006 > Nokia N92 TV license needed?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Nokia N92 TV license needed?
|
|
|
|
| Sts4Heffer 2006-05-21, 5:49 pm |
|
"T.J." <no1@home.invalid> wrote in message
news:Q8Odnec5XpiczO3
ZnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt
.com...
> With the N92 being able to pick up and receive
> TV broadcasts, will it mean you have to have a
> TV license when you buy one?
> TIA.
>
>
> --
> T.J.
> http://www. uksmallbusinessdirec
tory.co.uk
>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/finan...TVLicencing.pdf
page 10.........it appears you need a license unless
1. You have a home license which then covers self powered TV
receivers.....page 12
1. You are 74/75 yrs old.
I may be wrong but lets see what other say............
If you go buy a set top box they take your address and tell you its to
notify the authorities........but this could just be bull.
dj
| |
| David Hearn 2006-05-21, 5:49 pm |
| T.J. wrote:
> With the N92 being able to pick up and receive
> TV broadcasts, will it mean you have to have a
> TV license when you buy one?
> TIA.
Quite simply, if it receives TV programmes which are broadcast
simultaneously live to TVs across the UK, then it needs a license. As
it is powered by it's own batteries, then as long as you have one for
your home address, you'll be covered. If you don't, then you'll need one.
If it receives TV which has been time delayed (not sure the minimum
time) or on demand then it won't need a license.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4708170.stm
D
| |
| David Hearn 2006-05-21, 5:49 pm |
| Sts4Heffer wrote:
> "T.J." <no1@home.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Q8Odnec5XpiczO3
ZnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt
.com...
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/finan...TVLicencing.pdf
>
> page 10.........it appears you need a license unless
>
> 1. You have a home license which then covers self powered TV
> receivers.....page 12
> 1. You are 74/75 yrs old.
>
> I may be wrong but lets see what other say............
>
> If you go buy a set top box they take your address and tell you its to
> notify the authorities........but this could just be bull.
>
> dj
All retailers of TV receivers (ie. TVs, videos, set top boxes etc) are
required to notify TV licensing of the purchaser's name and address.
D
| |
|
| no1@home.invalid declared for all the world to hear...
> With the N92 being able to pick up and receive
> TV broadcasts, will it mean you have to have a
> TV license when you buy one?
Only if it's receiving a TV broadcast using a tuner, if it's streamed
across the internet then no licence is necessary.
--
Regards
Jon
| |
|
| On Sun, 21 May 2006 13:00:12 +0100, David Hearn
<dave@NOswampieSPAM.org.uk> wrote:
>All retailers of TV receivers (ie. TVs, videos, set top boxes etc) are
>required to notify TV licensing of the purchaser's name and address.
But the retailers aren't required to confirm that the purchaser's
address is correct. So feel free to give them a false address,
preferably one that doesn't exist.
As an aside, this is really a quite absurd law because purchasing a
television doesn't necessarily imply that it will be used at the
address of the purchaser. As someone who chooses not to have a
television at home, if I buy one as a gift for someone else, giving my
own address is an invitation for TVL to harrass me even more than they
normally do.
Mike.
--
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
| |
| Alan J. Flavell 2006-05-21, 5:49 pm |
| On Sun, 21 May 2006, Mike wrote:
> But the retailers aren't required to confirm that the purchaser's
> address is correct. So feel free to give them a false address,
> preferably one that doesn't exist.
Unrelated to TVs, but some shops record customer's address by
reference to a postcode database. Give them a non-existent address
(not that I actually tried), and their system would reject it.
| |
| Simon Dean 2006-05-21, 5:49 pm |
| T.J. wrote:
> With the N92 being able to pick up and receive
> TV broadcasts, will it mean you have to have a
> TV license when you buy one?
> TIA.
>
>
Have you found an N92 then? Where?
| |
| Andrew Woodvine 2006-05-21, 5:49 pm |
| Jon wrote:
> no1@home.invalid declared for all the world to hear...
>
> Only if it's receiving a TV broadcast using a tuner, if it's streamed
> across the internet then no licence is necessary.
The TV Licencing Authority seem to think differently, see:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/1...o
_watch/
Andrew Woodvine
| |
| David Hearn 2006-05-21, 5:49 pm |
| Jon wrote:
> no1@home.invalid declared for all the world to hear...
>
> Only if it's receiving a TV broadcast using a tuner, if it's streamed
> across the internet then no licence is necessary.
The requirement is to do with whether the programme being watched is
also being broadcasted to TVs, not the medium through which it is
received. IP based TV, Satellite, terrestrial, cable etc, the medium is
not important.
Again, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4708170.stm and see
what TV Licensing have to say about it (and watching TV on PCs etc).
D
| |
|
| On Sun, 21 May 2006 13:00:12 +0100, David Hearn
<dave@NOswampieSPAM.org.uk> wrote:
>Sts4Heffer wrote:
>
>All retailers of TV receivers (ie. TVs, videos, set top boxes etc) are
>required to notify TV licensing of the purchaser's name and address.
>
supposed to be frequently don't
Argos didn't ask my parents when they bought a pvr freeview box,
despite it saying on the box they should fill in a form..
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-05-21, 5:49 pm |
|
"T.J." <no1@home.invalid> wrote in message
news:Q8Odnec5XpiczO3
ZnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt
.com
> With the N92 being able to pick up and receive
> TV broadcasts, will it mean you have to have a
> TV license when you buy one?
> TIA.
No, they don't have TV licenses in America.
In the UK however, you will need a TV Licence.
Ivor
| |
|
| dave@NOswampieSPAM.org.uk declared for all the world to hear...
> Jon wrote:
>
> The requirement is to do with whether the programme being watched is
> also being broadcasted to TVs, not the medium through which it is
> received. IP based TV, Satellite, terrestrial, cable etc, the medium is
> not important.
>
> Again, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4708170.stm and see
> what TV Licensing have to say about it (and watching TV on PCs etc).
I see. My info is out of date then. WOuldn't be the first time!
--
Regards
Jon
| |
| hairydog@despammed.com 2006-05-21, 5:49 pm |
| On 21 May 2006 06:40:15 -0700, "Andrew Woodvine" <andrew@woodvine.com>
wrote:
>
>The TV Licencing Authority seem to think differently, see:
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/1...o
_watch/
They are telling lies. But that's fairly normal for them.
I spent some time tracing through the complex series of regulations
that relate to watching TV programmes across the web, and it became
clear that it all hinged on the definition of "broadcast". This
definition is quite clearly set out in the regulations, though it is
not easy to find!
Basically, if you watch a TV programme streamed from a web page - even
if it is a "live" TV programme, you don't need a licence. This is
because each video feed is sent individually to each PC.
However, this technology costs a lot in bandwidth, and some ISPs
(including my suppliers, Zen) are testing a multicast system which
effectively means that people can share a data stream. This makes it a
broadcast according to the regulations, and so you would need a
licence to view it.
As very few ADSL modem/router support multicast streams (mine doesn't)
this is not a significant factor, but I can see that if multicast
becomes mainstream, you will need a TV licence for some video streamed
from the web. I anticipate this causing a lot of confusion, because a
small technical difference will make a big legal difference.
--
Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!
| |
| Stephen (Sausagefans.com) 2006-05-22, 5:48 pm |
| In article <MPG. 1eda93ac3a63b14998a0
ef@text.usenet.plus.net>,
spam@jonparker.plus.com says...
> I see. My info is out of date then. WOuldn't be the first time!
Is that the official info or was it your own?
--
Sausage King and Queen clothing
http://sausagefans.com/newsarticle.php?id=189
| |
|
| usenet@sausagefans.com declared for all the world to hear...
> In article <MPG. 1eda93ac3a63b14998a0
ef@text.usenet.plus.net>,
> spam@jonparker.plus.com says...
>
> Is that the official info or was it your own?
My own.
--
Regards
Jon
| |
| Stephen 2006-05-22, 5:48 pm |
| In article < 8tm072ppfrh95485fpne
iebq29ofobsfhk@news.kempston.net>,
mike@kempston.net says...
> But the retailers aren't required to confirm that the purchaser's
> address is correct. So feel free to give them a false address,
> preferably one that doesn't exist.
But assuming you are buying a phone they may have your address for the
contract...
--
Sausage King and Queen clothing
http://sausagefans.com/newsarticle.php?id=189
| |
| Steve Terry 2006-05-23, 11:48 pm |
|
"T.J." <no1@home.invalid> wrote in message
news:Q8Odnec5XpiczO3
ZnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt
.com...
> With the N92 being able to pick up and receive
> TV broadcasts, will it mean you have to have a
> TV license when you buy one?
> TIA.
>
No one needs a TV licence for portable TV receivers
Steve Terry
| |
|
| On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:21:01 GMT, "Steve Terry" <g4wwk@tesco.net>
wrote:
>No one needs a TV licence for portable TV receivers
There's something about this subject that causes people to
misunderstand the law.
For the record, a licence *is* required for a portable television
receiver if it's installed or used to receive television programme
services (a term that's defined in the legislation). Under some
circumstances, such as being powered from its internal batteries and
being used away from home, a portable TV receiver is covered by the
licence that covers the home address.
I'll bore you all silly by quoting the relevant legislation if anyone
disagrees.
Mike.
--
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
| |
| Steve Terry 2006-05-26, 5:48 pm |
|
"Mike" <mike@kempston.net> wrote in message
news:mt0772lt941rgoh
joh67rdaurm0dke8d52@
news.kempston.net...
> On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:21:01 GMT, "Steve Terry" <g4wwk@tesco.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> There's something about this subject that causes people to
> misunderstand the law.
>
> For the record, a licence *is* required for a portable television
> receiver if it's installed or used to receive television programme
> services (a term that's defined in the legislation). Under some
> circumstances, such as being powered from its internal batteries and
> being used away from home, a portable TV receiver is covered by the
> licence that covers the home address.
>
> I'll bore you all silly by quoting the relevant legislation if anyone
> disagrees.
> Mike.
>
Go to a main post office and ask for one for a portable tv which has
no fixed address, they'll tell you there isn't one.
Get them to write that down and sign it, gives you something to show
officals
Steve Terry
| |
|
| On Fri, 26 May 2006 16:45:08 GMT, "Steve Terry" <g4wwk@tesco.net>
wrote:
>Go to a main post office and ask for one for a portable tv which has
>no fixed address, they'll tell you there isn't one.
>Get them to write that down and sign it, gives you something to show
>officals
Clever idea but, in practice, the post office staff probably wouldn't
give you a signed document and, even if they did, they have no power
to offer immunity from prosecution.
Although if you're homeless and sleep under the railway arches, I
doubt that the TVL inspectors will trouble you much.
Mike.
--
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
| |
| Jimbo..... 2006-05-27, 5:48 am |
|
> Although if you're homeless and sleep under the railway arches, I
> doubt that the TVL inspectors will trouble you much.
Or if you were doing so in Glasgow that you would have the 'phone very
long..............
|
|
|
|
|