"Andy Hall" wrote | "Owain" wrote: | >| But unfortunately it still needs a licence... :-( | >No, because streaming video over a computer network isn't | >broadcast television. | If you are a company and use broadcast TV and distribute it | over a computer network to your employees, you may require | a license or redistribution agreement from the content owner | or the original broadcaster..
I think you would require both - a TV licence for operating the broadcast receiver, and some form of redistribution rights.
For off air TV used in a domestic setting you are right - basically it depends on the presence of a tuner.
For example, when my daughter was at university, she had a tuner card in her PC to watch TV programs without needing a separate TV. This definitely needed a license.
If you watch streaming video at home from an internet site, you don't need a license.
However, the game changes totally in a commercial environment. You can't just fix up a TV tuner, satellite receiver or cable STB and stream the programs over your corporate network without a license.
A lot of content is licensed for domestic use only, where the owner can be assured of a reasonably know revenue stream. In a commercial environment a standard TV license is required for each location of the business, plus any requirements that satellite TV companies may have on top of that.
Oh yes you do, since 1st April this year. The TV licence is no longer a wireless telegraphy licence under the 1949 WT Act. It's now required by regulations under the 2003 Communications Act:
formatting link
was a long thread on this topic on cam.misc in July - see, for example:
Would you care to quote the relevant section or sub section were the above is stated in the document quoted, please....
ISTM that people are getting confused about computers fitted with RF or Satellite receiving cards and those just connected to the 'internet', in the Act what is and is not a "television set" is clearly set out. To quote the relevant section;
Meaning of "television set" 11. - (1) In Part 1 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967, "television set" means any apparatus which (either alone or in association with other apparatus) is capable of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service but is not computer apparatus.
(2) In this regulation, "computer apparatus" means apparatus which -
(a) is designed or adapted to be used (either alone or in association with other apparatus) for storing or processing data, but not for doing so in connection with the reception by means of wireless telegraphy of television programme services; and
(b) is not offered for sale or letting as apparatus for use (either alone or in association with other apparatus) primarily for or in connection with the reception (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) of such services;
and "processing" includes displaying.
Also, to back this up, no mention is made on any of the BBCi 'watch again' / 'watch live' pages (such as the web-streamed news or Parliament options) that a valid TV licence is needed to access the content in the UK and display it on a computer monitor (or other monitor device). Now, I suppose, this little fact might just be an omission by the BBC...
ISTM that the loop-hole that was closed was that of computers installed with 'PCI tuner cards' etc. Once fitted they come under section 11 - (1) above but not unless so fitted.
I think that you may be extrapolating more out of this than is in the TV Licensing SI.
It has to be defined as a television program service within the definitions given in the Communications Act.
"television programme service" means any of the following- (a) a television broadcasting service; (b) a television licensable content service; (c) a digital television programme service; (d) a restricted television service;
So unless the content that you watch falls under one of these definitions, licensing would appear not to apply.
If you look at the Ofcom notes on Television Licensable Content Services, they do not intend it to apply to internet streaming or video on demand.
You can also get a reasonable idea of the situation from the BBC web site. As far as I can find, the only thing that is live streamed is the Parliament channel. The rest is clips of various lengths. In fact they go out of their way to make sure that content is readily available all over the planet by being their own ASP.
Obviously if you install a TV tuner and set up a streaming video server and watch that on your PC, then you have created a licensable TV, but this is not the same thing.
I may have missed something, but I can't find anything that says or implies that TV licensing applies to content from public internet sites where the content provider is not asking for payment and controlling access.
I don't think you really meant exactly what you said above, did you, otherwise such content on (say) AOL would require a TV licence and they seek payment to access their servers etc. and most certainly do control access to their networks and what content they carry !...
Meaning of "television receiver" 9. - (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), "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.
BUT see Andy Hall's post re the meaning of "television service".
A "television set" is defined for the purpose of the '67 WT act, wrt dealer notification. It is not the same as a "television receiver".
Yes, that was the bit I didn't get round to looking up. No-one else in the cam.misc thread took up the challenge either.
Well now I'm confused. If the Beeb were to start streaming (say) BBC1 I'm sure they'd want it covered by the licence requirement[*]. But how does that differ from the Parliament channel? Both are (broadcast) television programme services.
[*] Otherwise, why would the legislation heave been put in place?
Most of it seems to be to cover the distribution to the viewer of "broadcast" TV via satellite, cable and DTTV, which were not very well covered by the earlier legislation.
The fact that IP as a technology might be used to distribute the content is a red herring because the networks used are private.
BBC programs can be seen accidentally outside the UK in Belgium and parts of Holland via analogue transmission, but this does not account for many people.
Most of the satellites with footprints over Europe carry BBC content (typically BBC World and BBC Prime) encrypted and presumably with payment back. There is the odd transponder with these in free-to-air The radio World Service receives government funding from the Foreign Office IIRC.
You can also get to BBC World TV on the internet but that has detection for UK origin IP addresses and denies access because the content is not "meant" to be for the UK audience. However, if you access via a proxy outside the UK, you can get access but it comes through Real Networks Superpass system for which you ultimately pay. Undoubtedly the BBC gets payment for that
BBC Parliament seems to be an odd one out in that it can be accessed in full and live on the internet with no restriction. Perhaps the legislators decided wisely that it would be a hot potato to make an issue of it.
So you think that EVERYONE who has a computer needs a TV license, as any computer is capable of being used to view 'television programme' content via an IP network...
Transmitter 'spill' has nothing to do with UK TV licensing.
The BBC changed satellite (from the one used by Murdock, which has a large footprint) to one with a restricted footprint, this SAVED the BBC money due to not having to go through the Murdock encryption process, in either case AIUI the BBC did not and does not receive any 'payment back' were the broadcast can be received.
So you are agreeing that everyone who own a computer needs a TV licence, as any computer is *capable* of 'receiving broadcast' content via IP ?!...
The real issues regarding access are COPYRIGHT and CONTENT licensing for most if not all access restrictions, why do you think the BBC listen again service does not contain all programmes and those that are available are only listed for 7 days.
The reason for the change was the transponder leasing figure that Murdoch had in mind to be on the Sky platform, not so much the cost of encryption issue.
The point being on the new platform that the footprint mainly covers areas where TV reception is licensed and they can take a commercial view on it, only needing to be in the Sky EPG.
No I didn't say that at all. I had moved on from the licensing issue in the sense of the TV license that is paid , to the generic issue of the licensing of content in the general sense - i.e. right to use. That is separate and distinct from TV Licensing.
I made the point regarding definitions of broadcast TV in the Communications Act.
That was precisely the point that I was making, using the BBC internet content sites as an example.
In a commercial setting, yes. I've had some involvement in implementing such systems in the past. For off-air analogue TV a business TV license covers it because it covers you building by building within the business. So I could cable up my office with a CATV system and have lots of TVs, but I need another license if I sublet part of the building for the use of others - or rather they do. Distributing within the building over IP would really make no difference to that principle.
If you had multiple buildings you could circumvent this with IP streaming, but it may not be economic - you would be trading the cost of your building to building bandwidth with implementing an additional head-end.
However, commercially licensed services are a different matter. IIRC Sky have a special charging scheme and some of the paid financial TV services are or were licensed per user.
"Andy Wade" wrote | Well now I'm confused. If the Beeb were to start streaming | (say) BBC1 I'm sure they'd want it covered by the licence | requirement[*]. But how does that differ from the Parliament | channel? Both are (broadcast) television programme services.
It might be more accurate to say that Parliament is a video recording (of a matter of public record) presented on the BBC website, which also happens to be broadcast on television by the BBC. The Scottish Parliament, for example, can be watched on streaming video from the SP website, without the BBC being involved at all.
Many moons ago - ab intio the TV service was run by the Houses of Parliament themselves. [I needed to obtain their permission to utilise a picture captured off screen]. Then suddenly - Year 5 AB?-the service was 'taken over' by BBC. The BBC started to run subtitled explanations of what was occurring on screen - some might say giving the Government's slant on things under discussion. Of course when the 'House' decided that BBC would broadcast our parliament - Tone had appointed his nuLabourContributors to positions of power in that organisation.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.