cynicalbastard

I’ve complained before of the tactics of the TV licensing people.

This morning the press was full of the news that watching the world cup on your home or work computer means you have to buy a TV licence. The story from The Sun is straight-forward (with the note that you don’t need a license to listen to their audio coverage).

The Guardian typically tries to follow what has always been the previous understanding of the law regarding the need for a licence–that TV receiving equipment is needed (ie. a decoder card), and no licence would be required if one is simply watching TV over broadband.

However, and this is where it gets interesting, others have actually asked. Out-law.com carry the story and have a quote from a rep of the licensing authority making clear that a special card isn’t needed:

“We make no distinction between those watching TV via PC-TV, broadband or any other way,” said the spokeswoman. “If you are watching TV at the same time as it is being broadcast in the UK you need to be covered by a valid licence

This is based on a statutory instrument issued by the secretary of state in 2004–

“‘television receiver’ means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.”

Out-law suggests that the law would probably accept that a computer would be included in that definition. Not that this is a new story—TV licensing made the same announcement back in February when TV on mobiles was the target.

However, OFCOM has, in the past, said that the law does not apply to broadband connections. And the DCMS (the government department responsible for TV licensing) has said likewise. TV licensing’s own webpage still only mentions PCs with a broadcast card (presumably they don’t care about Macs).

With regard to mobiles, the TV licensing site is also explicit that TV sets using their own internal batteries do not require a license. Presumably a mobile could be so defined?

Basically, the authorities are trying it on. TV licensing have expanded the definition of TV equipment to include ‘virtually live’ thanks to government support, which gets round the time lag on streaming, but the regulations still await testing in court. When OFCOM believes there’s a loophole, you’ve got to wonder who to believe.

Of course, they also have no way of knowing who is using broadband to watch TV (unless BT hands over their subscriber list), so the whole thing is rather moot.

Luckily, they have a solution in the long term: a tax on computer equipment itself. Now there’s a way to end the digital divide. .

Elsewhere Jonathan Miller (no, not the Beyond the Fringe guy) is challenging licensing in court using the Human Rights Act, which guarantees individuals the right to receive and impart information and only allows the state to license the broadcasters rather than individuals receiving the broadcasts.

If the inspectors do come to call, some information on your rights may help. They can’t enter your home without a search warrant, and they can’t get one of those without evidence.