You need a license to receive tellybox signals.

(Takes bait)

Do you need to have a television to watch television on computer or mobile phone?

 

You do need a licence to watch any television channel in the UK.

 

Yes:

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/

You need one to watch anything 'as it's being broadcast' is what i thought. All the adverts in Sept we're telling students that^^ So i'm assuming if you're catching up online it's ok??

 

Goes off to google

You wouldn't need a licence if you only watch DVDs on the TV or only use catch up services like iPlayer:

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/c...is-not-needed-top12/

 

 

Well according to the leaflet received with my television licence renewal, you do need a licence to watch live television on tv, computer or mobile phone. But research on the internet suggests different....

good link

 

http://www.moneysavingexpert.c...ties/tv-licence#need

Thanks for the info

If you could prove that your set is not capable of receiving a live signal.

I remember telling some American people years ago that we had to pay to watch TV over here and they could not believe it.  Then I thought we were getting such a good service that it was, maybe, worth the licence fee.  No longer though I fear and I think it's time they stopped this particular tax.  The BBC puts on enough 'adverts' anyway with all their silly in between programme bits and trailers, sometimes it's worse than the commercial channels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPwNgIsH9BA 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n54_XK77vX8  

(See I knew the thread would develop in that way) The debate is also taking place in our local evening paper. It is a difficult one this state v market telly argument. I can well understand that people think the c£150 a tax. On the other hand, what a bargain it is, all of those TV channels, excellent radio both national, local and specialist. I'm sure if anyone can come up with a cheaper alternative then the days of BBC will be numbered. Until then it's just a bunch of entrepreneurs who see the Beeb as an opportunity to make more cash. They can't understand the principal of non market finance. Then it will be your NHS following in the same direction.

Sorry Joe 

In my mind it started off as a search for genuine info but then I went in search of videos I had been told about on tubey and came up with the two I posted 

 

 

 

saw that a couple of weeks ago

Do you need a doggy license?

And if so . . .do you need a kitty license?

I can remember dog licences. Don't know why they stopped them.

They were on about bringing them back a couple of years ago for dangerous dogs weren't they? Around the time those two rottweilers killed a small child in a pub/on a pub roof... if i remember there was another dog attack around the same time.

Dunno and dunno 

 

I personally don't see it as a tax, I see it as a cost of the service, a service that I have the option of having or not having. At 41p per day I think it is pretty good value.

Maybe once the BBC (the only service we have to pay for) was good value for money but it is probably the channel I watch the least now.  I think if they had to compete for revenue with the other channels they might trim their budget in accordance with market forces.  I feel they are grossly bloated, the number of staff they send overseas to cover events is plain daft. 

Perhaps you can explain how ITV, Sky and co magic money out of nowhere. So that I may also have a go.

Yep! 4.36 billion in fact for the ITV. So can someone please  tell me where the money magically appears from?

You see I have a suspicion that we may also pay for ITV, and given the choice I'd  cut 'em adrift. IMHYCO they are shieght compared to the Beeb.

Production boosts ITV finances

ITV Studios posted revenues of £212m in the first three months of the year, up 61% on the £132m recorded over the same period in 2011 – helping the broadcaster beat analyst expectations.

The production arm of the UK’s biggest free-to-air commercial broadcaster benefited from the “front loaded” delivery of shows, including Hell’s Kitchen and The Jeremy Kyle Show in the US, as well as the inclusion of Daybreak in its production output.

 

“ITV Studios again performed strongly both in the UK and internationally, particularly in the US, with an encouraging number of new commissions,” said chief executive Adam Crozier in ITV’s interim management statement.

“This puts ITV Studios on track to grow revenues this year at a similar rate to 2011.”

 

The strong period of growth helped ITV to a total turnover of £652m in the first three months of the year, up 15% from £568m in 2011.

 

Some £362m of this was from total advertising income, which was down marginally on last year, when ad revenues stood at £365m.

It means ITV secured more than 44% of its turnover from sources other than advertising, which nearly falls in line with the company’s five-year transformation plan to ensure ad revenue is matched by other income consistently.

ITV’s external revenues (with ITVS’s internal supply stripped out) stood at £565m in the first three months of the year, up 13% from £500m in 2011.

Net advertising revenue was down 1% in the first quarter of the year, but was “better than anticipated”.

 

Ad turnover is set to rise 3% in the first six months of 2012, benefiting from strong growth around Euro 2012, with revenues in June set to be up 17%. ITV expects to outperform the market over the course of the year.

ITV1’s share of viewing fell 4% to 16.3% in the four months to the end of April, contributing to a 2% decline in viewing across the broadcaster’s family of channels. This was despite ITV’s digital stations posting a 4% growth in audience.

 

Online and on-demand long form video views on ITV Player increased 24% to 110m.

 

Sorry, but I have to disagree on the value point. They have some very good content across a number of channels. BBC 1, BBC 2, BBC HD, BBC Three and BBC Four. They also have plenty of excellent radio programmes.

 

Paying the license fee allows them not to have to compete for revenue via advertising. If the license fee was dropped, then they would have to compete and I'm sure the quality and quantity of programming would be affected.

 

You only have to look at the ITV channels, it's full of mindless rubbish. They rarely have anything of worth on.

 

I use the BBC most of all, then Channel 4 and it's additional channels.

 

What I do agree with you on is the number of reporters they seem to have at the same location, it's crazy. Depending on the size of story you can probably get away with one.

 

I guess you could stop paying the license and watch everything on catch TV on-line. 

 

 

 

I don't watch much ITV, in fact very little. Would not be missed by me.

 

Apparently Channel 4 get's public money as well as the BBC.

Indeed it does!

Your post underlines my point of view.  You like the BBC channels and are a keen listener to their radio stations.  I am not.  But do I get a choice of whether I want to pay for all the stuff that the BBC churns out at sometimes horrendous cost and which doesn't appeal to me?  No I do not, hardly a fair proposition is it, that is why I regard the licence fee as an iniquitous tax, like the dog licence well past its sell by date.

Whatever we think I'm sure that further down the line it will be ITV Celebrity Car parking, and wall to wall Kiss/Heart or whatever radio playing the top twenty on a loop.

I used to not have a license, but only because I only had a DVD player and no tv channels. I didn't miss tv either!

I think it's a disgrace that you get a criminal record for non payment of the TV licence.!!!

It should be decriminalised  .

Dont they have to have evidence against you to prosecute?
How can they get that evidence if you dont admit you are watching tv at all?

 

I don't think they have to catch you watching - just have to catch you with a telly in the house.

Enquiry officers have no more right to enter your home that yout postman ,so do not let them in .They will have to go to magistrates court for a warrant.