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.
Legal proceedings no TV licence
- Thread starter Zippy
- Start date
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.
So how does watching TV on broadband work if theres no aerial
Are you enquiring how to watch TV over broadband?
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
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
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...
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.
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?
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?
Here is the definition according to the act
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.
Z
z108
Guest
does it also apply to camper vans with portable tvs/aerials attached ?
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.
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.
Z
z108
Guest
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
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.
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
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.
Interesting. Does it definitely say in the act that you only need a licence for a "television set" as defined below?
In which case, why have people been prosecuted for having say an aerial on their roof?
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.
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.