# Legal proceedings no TV licence



## Zippy (22 Jun 2007)

Should I be worried ? A TV licence inspector called to my home recently, I assured him that  I had a TV licence but could not find it at the time. I do in fact have an up to date licence renewed in February but apparently his records did not show this. He assured me he would check this and amend his records, problem solved. Today I received notice of legal proceedings, should I just let this run until I am presented with a fine or court date, then demand an apology (this would be my chosen option, wipe their noses in it), or should I contact The TV licence records office and prove my innocence now?


----------



## CCOVICH (22 Jun 2007)

I would correct it now.


----------



## deem (22 Jun 2007)

so would I,

ps you never said you had found the tv licence, just check again its in your name and current address, ie where tv licence was requested 


edited to say : sorry if stupid question but is it dated prior to visit by tv licence inspector


----------



## Zippy (22 Jun 2007)

Thanks for reply, inspector called in May, and yes I have since found my TV licence and all details address etc are correct.


----------



## z108 (22 Jun 2007)

Is the TV license inspector empowered to enter your home and verify if you have no TV ? Can  a person claim to have no TV set/broken TV set but refuse entry to him or her ? How does that work ?


----------



## ClubMan (22 Jun 2007)

I doubt that the inspector can enter your home without permission.


----------



## aircobra19 (22 Jun 2007)

sign said:


> Is the TV license inspector empowered to enter your home and verify if you have no TV ? Can  a person claim to have no TV set/broken TV set but refuse entry to him or her ? How does that work ?



A tuner gives off a signal they can detect from outside. They can even tell which station you are watching.


----------



## jhegarty (22 Jun 2007)

Noise + Wipe + It .....


----------



## bond-007 (22 Jun 2007)

ClubMan said:


> I doubt that the inspector can enter your home without permission.


Nope, they cannot enter without permission, they need to obtain a search warrant and then return with the Gardai to enter. This could take a few days. Plenty of time in between to obtain a licence.


----------



## ClubMan (22 Jun 2007)

jhegarty said:


> Noise + Wipe + It .....


Huh?!


----------



## z108 (22 Jun 2007)

ClubMan said:


> I doubt that the inspector can enter your home without permission.



I doubted that while the guards need warrants to enter the homes of criminals involved in serious crime that they would conversely have draconian powers regarding TV sets.




aircobra19 said:


> A tuner gives off a signal they can detect from outside. They can even tell which station you are watching.



But how can they prove that any signal comes from my house and not from behind it or beside it etc? In many houses I can think of , in particular my own, the neighbours TV set is on the opposite side of the party wall from mine.

And in lots of houses in particular my mothers old Georgian house, the TV set is at the back and there is a huge barrier at the front and back between where the public street meets the door.
No signal could get through. Can you explain some more about the science involved in this ?



bond-007 said:


> Nope, they cannot enter without permission, they need to obtain a search warrant and then return with the Gardai to enter. This could take a few days. Plenty of time in between to obtain a licence.



I would think _plenty of time_ to *be rid of my TV set* or to *buy a licence and a TV set.*



If they cant physically prove I have a  TV set then how can they enforce the law


----------



## z107 (22 Jun 2007)

(Clubman, Wipe their noses in it - see original post)

The licence inspectors follow a set procedure. There is a flow chart on the internet somewhere that details it. Interestingly, it assumes that the occupant has a television.


----------



## ClubMan (22 Jun 2007)

umop3p!sdn said:


> (Clubman, Wipe their noses in it - see original post)


What has "noise" got to do with that?


----------



## jhegarty (22 Jun 2007)

ClubMan said:


> What has "noise" got to do with that?




Well that would cause confusion ... should have been nose...


----------



## bond-007 (22 Jun 2007)

http://www.audgen.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=630&&CatID=5&StartDate=1+January+2007
Some food for thought there.


----------



## bond-007 (22 Jun 2007)

umop3p!sdn said:


> (Clubman, Wipe their noses in it - see original post)
> 
> The licence inspectors follow a set procedure. There is a flow chart on the internet somewhere that details it. Interestingly, it assumes that the occupant has a television.


http://www.audgen.gov.ie/documents/vfmreports/47_TVLicence.pdf
See page 34


----------



## oldtimer (22 Jun 2007)

To clarify a few points re above (1) Inspectors work from a database which tells them houses/apartments which have/haven't licences. This database is not always accurate e.g the slightest error in spelling will cause problems. (2) Inspectors do not have any kind of apparatus to detect a TV in a house. (3) They do not have permission to enter a house. They request permission. (4) Once an *aerial* is detected they can prosecute, an aerial is part of a TV apparatus under the Act. (5) They give plenty of time for a licence to be purchased and/or a licence holder to produce a current licence, or if cannot be found, give details of where purchased, when etc. Going to Court is a very last resort. As a general rule this is how it works. I know individuals will have different stories which have been covered on this forum before.


----------



## room305 (23 Jun 2007)

I'm surprised the TV inspector has never called round to my house given I haven't had a licence for well over a year. I'm on the NTL database too - or certainly they keep sending out letters either asking me to rejoin or claiming I still owe them money. As far as I'm aware, NTL pass on details of their customers for licence inspection purposes.

I certainly won't be giving the inspector permission to go poking around my house!


----------



## aircobra19 (23 Jun 2007)

oldtimer said:


> To clarify a few points re above (1) Inspectors work from a database which tells them houses/apartments which have/haven't licences. This database is not always accurate e.g the slightest error in spelling will cause problems. (2) Inspectors do not have any kind of apparatus to detect a TV in a house. (3) They do not have permission to enter a house. They request permission. (4) Once an *aerial* is detected they can prosecute, an aerial is part of a TV apparatus under the Act. (5) They give plenty of time for a licence to be purchased and/or a licence holder to produce a current licence, or if cannot be found, give details of where purchased, when etc. Going to Court is a very last resort. As a general rule this is how it works. I know individuals will have different stories which have been covered on this forum before.



How do they detect an aerial? A lot of places have no visible aerial.


----------



## aircobra19 (23 Jun 2007)

sign said:


> ....But how can they prove that any signal comes from my house and not from behind it or beside it etc? In many houses I can think of , in particular my own, the neighbours TV set is on the opposite side of the party wall from mine.
> 
> And in lots of houses in particular my mothers old Georgian house, the TV set is at the back and there is a huge barrier at the front and back between where the public street meets the door.
> No signal could get through. Can you explain some more about the science involved in this ?....



I found links before about this, but can't at the moment.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-22440,00.html
[broken link removed]

I'm sure it would it easy to work out if they were bothered to try. That said I've never a detector van and am inclinded to believe that one doesn't exist, as you'd see one if they did in fact have them. They just send a letter to people not on their database, 9 time out of 10 the person will have a TV.


----------



## z108 (23 Jun 2007)

If detector vans actually exist, then I would think someone living in the middle or back of of a dense and gated apartment block would appear to be safe.
Its' funny to me that if they exist, we never get to see them on TV  in this age where everyone is interviewed in their job and gets 5 minuites of fame.



Are there any legal case studied available concerning TV license prosecutions and if any were successfully defended ?

If NTL (which I have  currently) introduced cable broadband to my area,  wouldnt I be able to say I only am in NTL and the 'snitched' database solely to use the internet and not to watch TV ? I presume I have the right also to pay for a service I dont use. And are there no data protection issues regarding NTL giving customer lists to the government or is the government universally entitled to this information by legislation also ?

Does Sky similarly give out information? Sky apparently are based abroad. I have been interested lately in the concept of buying a free to air satellite dish for less than 1 years NTL fees e.g here www.satellite.ie and watching TV for free thereby bypassing having to pay NTL whos fees seem to have increased a lot lately. In this case I would be on nobodys list. In theory I could presumably place the dish on the back of my house where no inspector could see it.
I wonder then what case the TV license inspector can make against me in such a hypothetical situation where no TV set of any description can ever be associated with me ?


----------



## bond-007 (24 Jun 2007)

They would probably obtain a search warrant as per their own SOP.


----------



## z108 (24 Jun 2007)

bond-007 said:


> They would probably obtain a search warrant as per their own SOP.



But not after asking to enter my house, thereby giving me enough warning ,  ?


----------



## bond-007 (24 Jun 2007)

sign said:


> But not after asking to enter my house, thereby giving me enough warning ,  ?


Correct.


----------



## so-crates (25 Jun 2007)

Have a slightly different problem. I don't have (nor never have had) a television but the system is set up on the presumption that I am trying to avoid paying for it. Their calling card provides no place to state such so I rang them - after finally tracking down which office to ring, their website is appallingly uninformative - and was told to just write on the card that I didn't have a TV, sign it and send it back to them. Despite this I still got the menacing letter stating that I was being unco-operative, so I rang to explain that as I work quite far from home and am frequently abroad, I am not generally going to be at their beck and call but that if they truly wanted to get in I was happy to have someone there within ten minutes of their arriving at the door if they were willing to ring me and say they were outside but apparently this constitutes prior warning and they wouldn't agree. I am just waiting for them to send the next rude missive at this stage as the chances of them calling at a convenient time to me are vanishingly small!! It does all appear though to be working on the presumption of guilt with opportunity for clarification only on their terms which to me seems completely unfair.


----------



## so-crates (25 Jun 2007)

BTW - if you are wondering the tv licence office for Carlow is in... Birr. Eminently sensible - especially as their website only lists the offices not the areas that they control!


----------



## bond-007 (25 Jun 2007)

They can't prosecute unless you have a tv and they must prove that in court. I wouldn't worry about them.


----------



## z107 (25 Jun 2007)

> How do they detect an aerial? A lot of places have no visible aerial.



Lots of things can act as an aerial. For example, wire cost hangers, or anything containing Iron (such as human blood)


----------



## bond-007 (26 Jun 2007)

umop3p!sdn said:


> Lots of things can act as an aerial. For example, wire cost hangers, or anything containing Iron (such as human blood)


A wonderful catch all clause. 

You could imagine the scene in a district court somewhere in Ireland, 
"I observed through the front door that the accused had a large quantity of metal coat hangers and from that observation I formed the opinion that he was using them as an aerial and therefore the accused was in possession on an unlicensed television".


----------



## so-crates (26 Jun 2007)

> They can't prosecute unless you have a tv and they must prove that in court. I wouldn't worry about them


 
True and I don't, so I feel safe enough - it is more the attitude that irks than anything. Their correspondence is framed so that it feels you are being accused rather than being informed/queried.


----------



## room305 (26 Jun 2007)

bond-007 said:


> They can't prosecute unless you have a tv and they must prove that in court. I wouldn't worry about them.



Would having an aerial constitute proof do you think? I have a satellite on my roof - it's not connected to anything but I'm wondering should I go to the bother of taking it down in case a license inspector does call.


----------



## CCOVICH (26 Jun 2007)

room305 said:


> Would having an aerial constitute proof do you think? I have a satellite on my roof - it's not connected to anything but I'm wondering should I go to the bother of taking it down in case a license inspector does call.


 

According to the post above, it looks like a dish is part of the 'apparatus' and so you need a licence?


----------



## room305 (26 Jun 2007)

CCOVICH said:


> According to the post above, it looks like a dish is part of the 'apparatus' and so you need a licence?



Yeah, I've been reading over the act and ridiculous as it sounds it could well be covered. So I should probably take it down.



> 'wireless telegraphy' means the emitting and receiving, or emitting only or receiving only, over paths which are not provided by any material substance constructed or arranged for that purpose, of electric, magnetic or electro-magnetic energy of a frequency not exceeding 3 million megahertz, whether or not such energy serves the conveying (whether they are actually received or not) of communications, sounds, signs, visual images or signals, or the actuation or control of machinery or apparatus.



Although their mention of any material capable of electro-magnetic energy of any wavelength up to 3 terahertz means there is very little you couldn't be prosecuted for under this act. My ears are capable of receiving sound signals in the 300 hertz to 20 kilohertz range for example.


----------



## ClubMan (26 Jun 2007)

room305 said:


> I have a satellite on my roof


Isn't a satellite a broadcast or transponder apparatus? Unless you mean a satellite *dish*?


----------



## room305 (26 Jun 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Isn't a satellite a broadcast or transponder apparatus? Unless you mean a satellite *dish*?



Apologies, yes a dish. Although it seems I could still be successfully prosecuted even if it was a biscuit tin!


----------



## z108 (26 Jun 2007)

room305 said:


> Yeah, I've been reading over the act and ridiculous as it sounds it could well be covered. So I should probably take it down.
> 
> 
> 
> Although their mention of any material capable of electro-magnetic energy of any wavelength up to 3 terahertz means there is very little you couldn't be prosecuted for under this act. My ears are capable of receiving sound signals in the 300 hertz to 20 kilohertz range for example.




So perhaps a ham radio enthusiast with a receiving antennae needs a TV license too ? or anyone who merely wants a perfect *radio* signal ? Thats nuts


----------



## ang1170 (26 Jun 2007)

room305 said:


> Although their mention of any material capable of electro-magnetic energy of any wavelength up to 3 terahertz means there is very little you couldn't be prosecuted for under this act. My ears are capable of receiving sound signals in the 300 hertz to 20 kilohertz range for example.


 
A minor point, but sound is not electro-magnetic energy, so having a working pair of ears doesn't mean you need a license.....

By the way, the technology exists to detect if an (analog) TV is in use, and to pinpoint its position to a reasonable degree of accuracy. It's an entirely different matter whether that technology is actually in use for detecting license evaders (I personally very much doubt it, but I've no evidence on which to base that assumption).

Don't know about here, but in the UK there's a definite assumption that every household has a TV: someone called to my door when I was living there (with no TV) some years ago, looking for a license. They were quite agressive about what would happen to me if I didn't get one (I wouldn't allow them entry). I never followed it through though to see what would happen, as a few weeks later I bought a TV (and a license).


----------



## elefantfresh (26 Jun 2007)

I didn't have a licence and about 3 years ago during the Champions League final, the bell rang - I had a few of the lads over for beer and pizza so assumed it was another showing up - answered the door and it was the tv licence guy. The telly was blasting from inside with the noise of a match in full flow and lads swinging out of cans. The guy didnt even ask me anything. Just told me i had 2 or 3 weeks to get a licence and off he went!


----------



## z108 (26 Jun 2007)

elefantfresh said:


> I didn't have a licence and about 3 years ago during the Champions League final, the bell rang - I had a few of the lads over for beer and pizza so assumed it was another showing up - answered the door and it was the tv licence guy. The telly was blasting from inside with the noise of a match in full flow and lads swinging out of cans. The guy didnt even ask me anything. Just told me i had 2 or 3 weeks to get a licence and off he went!



Sounds like the kind of guy who would knock on your door even if Ireland were winning the world cup


----------



## room305 (26 Jun 2007)

sign said:


> So perhaps a ham radio enthusiast with a receiving antennae needs a TV license too ? or anyone who merely wants a perfect *radio* signal ? Thats nuts



By definition of the act _any_ radio whatsoever would be covered.


----------



## room305 (26 Jun 2007)

ang1170 said:


> A minor point, but sound is not electro-magnetic energy, so having a working pair of ears doesn't mean you need a license.....



Good point, physics was never my strong suit. Although the act is broad enough that any microwave, wireless broadband router or ordinary FM radio would technically need a "TV" licence.


----------



## Pique318 (26 Jun 2007)

So how does watching TV on broadband work if theres no aerial


----------



## room305 (26 Jun 2007)

Pique318 said:


> So how does watching TV on broadband work if theres no aerial



Are you enquiring how to watch TV over broadband?


----------



## Pique318 (26 Jun 2007)

No, I'm wondering where the law stands on the likes of watching TV on broadband with regards to having to have a TV licence.

No TV, no Aerial, no Radio...just an internet connection.

No TV card on laptop but you can use joox.net or alluc.org to watch tv shows and you can use sopcast for watching live TV.

Hook up a big monitor (not a TV) and you have the same end result, sans the usual equipment, and you're not intercepting a signal personally, someone else is and they're letting you watch what they intercept. Complex I know and you'd probably get done anyway under some obscure subsection of the law but I just wonder.....

Also, and this is slightly OT also, but if the licence fee goes to RTE, and you are incapable of receiving RTE (by using SKY, which doesn't broadcast RTE I believe but am open to correction) then I believe there should be no onus on you to pay for something you do not benefit from.

Anyone agree


----------



## CCOVICH (26 Jun 2007)

Sky does carry RTE.  And the licence isn't linked to whether or not you receive/watch RTE as far as I know.


----------



## Pique318 (26 Jun 2007)

CCOVICH said:


> Sky does carry RTE.  And the licence isn't linked to whether or not you receive/watch RTE as far as I know.



OK, didn't realise they had RTE.

I don't think the licence is linked either and that's what I find unfair. I don't believe you should be forced to pay for something if you don't benefit...much like the (technical)requirement to pay if there's an aerial on the roof regardless of whether or not there's a TV attached to it...


----------



## room305 (27 Jun 2007)

Pique318 said:


> No, I'm wondering where the law stands on the likes of watching TV on broadband with regards to having to have a TV licence.
> 
> No TV, no Aerial, no Radio...just an internet connection.
> 
> ...



I think it would be tough for them to prosecute you for this. Unless you use a wireless router to distribute the TV stream as a wireless router would nicely fit the description of a TV in the act. However, even if they can prosecute for this I doubt they will.

I do wonder though, as DVB-H enabled mobile handsets become available (mobile phones capable of receiving a mobile TV signal) how this will be dealt with. Of course technically you need a TV licence to own a mobile phone anyway so maybe it is a moot point. In reality the law is so loose that they can demand that you purchase a TV licence for anything they consider to be a TV.


----------



## ang1170 (27 Jun 2007)

Does anyone have the reference to what the relevant Act(s) actually say?

My assumption is that the wording is that you need a licence for any device capable of receiving broadcast video (i.e. pictures) signals and displaying or recoding them. Thus analog TVs and videos are definitely covered, analog radios aren't (can't display or record video). I've no doubt some PC related products would be included (TV tuner cards for example), but presumably all digital setups (e.g. viewing YouTube) aren't. I'd very much doubt if a digital setup that included a WiFi or similar network would be (as it's not broadcast, and WiFi frequencies are specifically chosen as they are outside the licensed spectrum). Actually that last point raises the question: is the Act worded in such a way that you need a license to receive signals in specific licensed frequency spectrums?

However, this is all assumption on my part: does anyone know the definitive answer?


----------



## room305 (27 Jun 2007)

ang1170 said:


> Does anyone have the reference to what the relevant Act(s) actually say?



Here is the definition according to the act



> 'apparatus for wireless telegraphy' means apparatus capable of emitting and receiving, or emitting only or receiving only, over paths which are not provided by any material substance constructed or arranged for that purpose, electric, magnetic or electro-magnetic energy, of a frequency not exceeding 3 million megahertz, whether or not such energy serves the conveying (whether they are actually received or not) of communications, sounds, signs, visual images or signals, or the actuation or control of machinery or apparatus, and includes any part of such apparatus, or any article capable of being used as part of such apparatus, and also includes any other apparatus which is associated with, or electrically coupled to, apparatus capable of so emitting such energy



A Wi-Fi router is most definitely covered in the above I should think, as is a microwave oven (they both "broadcast" on roughly the same frequency - 2.4GHz). Note that it says "whether or not" such devices actually transmit information that forms a signal. When you throw in the "any article capable of being used as part of such apparatus" you really could be forced to buy a licence to own a coat hanger.


----------



## ang1170 (27 Jun 2007)

By that definition, you'd need a license for a regular radio, which clearly is incorrect. 

The definition may be the correct one for something that transmits/receives, but the requirement for a TV license must be more restrictive.


----------



## z108 (27 Jun 2007)

does it also apply to camper vans with portable tvs/aerials attached ?


----------



## ang1170 (28 Jun 2007)

OK – time for some definitive answers.

After a bit of research, it turns out the main Act is, believe it or not, the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926 – see http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1926/en/act/pub/0045/index.html

This has been ammended a few times, in particular 1972 and 1988, where a TV is defined as:

“"Television set" means any apparatus for wireless telegraphy capable of receiving and exhibiting television programmes broadcast for general reception (whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction therewith) and any assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus.”

By this definition, any Internet TV is not included, even if it includes a WiFi "hop" or two, as it is not broadcast for general reception.

Having said that, the definition above probably isn’t totally definitive, as there’s a pile of Statutory Instruments relating to this as well.


----------



## z108 (28 Jun 2007)

ang1170 said:


> ......OK – time for some definitive answers.
> .......
> 
> By this definition, any Internet TV is not included, even if it includes a WiFi "hop" or two, as it is not broadcast for general reception.
> ...



I dont feel like I'm anywhere near a definitive answer.

If internet TV  doesnt qualify then whats the difference between a signal broadcast down a telephone wire and a signal broadcast down a coaxial cable ? 
Everything viewable on the internet is broadcast there for general reception unless paid for in advance. 

In fact by paying for NTL , I am accessing a signal which is not for general reception but instead is only for the reception of the exclusive club of paying customers


----------



## room305 (28 Jun 2007)

ang1170 said:


> By that definition, you'd need a license for a regular radio, which clearly is incorrect.
> 
> The definition may be the correct one for something that transmits/receives, but the requirement for a TV license must be more restrictive.



It's a _direct_ quote from the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1988.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1988/en/act/pub/0019/sec0002.html#zza19y1988s2


----------



## shnaek (28 Jun 2007)

As the ads say - 'In the REAL world you must have a TV license.'

So anyone without a TV isn't living in the real world.


----------



## ang1170 (28 Jun 2007)

room305 said:


> It's a _direct_ quote from the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1988.
> 
> http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1988/en/act/pub/0019/sec0002.html#zza19y1988s2


 
It may well be a direct quote, but it's not what you need the license for.

The original Act (1926) covered all radio broadcasts - you used to need a radio license. It was later ammended to needing a license for just a TV, where a TV is defined separately (see post above). There is no one source for the legislation: the 1926 Act is still valid; it's been ammended twice since and there's relevant SIs to consider as well.


----------



## ang1170 (28 Jun 2007)

sign said:


> I dont feel like I'm anywhere near a definitive answer.
> 
> If internet TV doesnt qualify then whats the difference between a signal broadcast down a telephone wire and a signal broadcast down a coaxial cable ?
> Everything viewable on the internet is broadcast there for general reception unless paid for in advance.
> ...


 
My guess is that it comes down the definition of broadcast: there's no difference (using the definition used) between receiving a signal over the air, or down a cable (NTL etc.): you definitely need a license for both.

Watching over the Internet, whether using a wired or wireless connection is subtly different: there is no "broadcast" signal that you can just tune into: you have to specifically connect to a particular site (i.e. if you don't connect the signal/data isn't sent). Contrast this with broadcast signals where the data/signal is sent anyway, regardless of whether you connect/tune into it. Hence no need for a license for watching video over the Internet.

Note also that the definition is framed in terms of a device that is capable of receiving a broadcast signal: even if it's not used for the purpose or broken it counts (aparently they claim it could be fixed).

I've no doubt that some of the newer (digital) technologies make the definition of "broadcast" a very grey one: no doubt it'll be ammended again to take this into account eventually.


----------



## room305 (28 Jun 2007)

ang1170 said:


> It may well be a direct quote, but it's not what you need the license for.
> 
> The original Act (1926) covered all radio broadcasts - you used to need a radio license. It was later ammended to needing a license for just a TV, where a TV is defined separately (see post above). There is no one source for the legislation: the 1926 Act is still valid; it's been ammended twice since and there's relevant SIs to consider as well.



Interesting. Does it definitely say in the act that you only need a licence for a "television set" as defined below?



> "Television set" means any apparatus for wireless telegraphy capable of receiving and exhibiting television programmes broadcast for general reception (whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction therewith) and any assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus.



In which case, why have people been prosecuted for having say an aerial on their roof?


----------



## ang1170 (28 Jun 2007)

Interesting enough, on further research, it seems that the requirement is to have a license for all "wireless telegraphy" except for those items explicitely exempted by SI.

See for example 

There are SIs that cover mobile phones, "cordless" phones etc. etc.

In other words, instead of saying you need a license for a TV, it's actually that you need a license for anything that isn't explicitely exempted.

I think the definition of TV I quoted above is only used in the act when talking about requirement for dealers etc. to notify sale or rental of them.


----------



## room305 (28 Jun 2007)

Yes, I see just about everything is included from short range business radios to satellite Earth stations. What an incredible mess.


----------



## Guest127 (29 Jun 2007)

could be wrong on this but I think you need a licence for a cctv system too even if its only used for security purposes.


----------



## bond-007 (29 Jun 2007)

You do.


----------



## ang1170 (29 Jun 2007)

I'm not sure that's correct: surely it depends on the type of monitor used? If it's a regular TV (i.e. display with tuner) it would need a license, but don't some CCTV systems use simple monitors with no tuner (i.e. bit like a monitor on a PC)? if so, I don't think it would need a license, as such monitors are not capable of receiving broadcast signals.


----------



## z108 (29 Jun 2007)

what about a walkie talkie ?


----------



## room305 (29 Jun 2007)

sign said:


> what about a walkie talkie ?



Exempt as far as I know. I think in practice they will exempt anything they know not to be a TV. They probably only get stubborn about the roof aerials and the like either through officiousness or because they suspect the owners do actually have a TV.


----------

