Do a monitor require a TV licence if not connected?

Chef-1st

Hi there,

I'm sure this has been bashed about on many threads before. Apologies in advance. I've been trying rid myself of this thorn in my side, specifically in the form of the dreaded annual TV Licence.

I don't watch TV anymore (eg: SKY).
So I purchased a screen without a tuner (Hitachi 42" from Richer Sounds) last year, just for the PS3. I was under the impression that, if this is classed as a monitor, I would not require a licence.

Just got a reply letter from them saying this screen still fits within the definition of a Television Set, thus requiring a licence.

Can anyone clarify, or have their own story to tell regarding monitors/projectors (no tuner devices) and TV Licences??

cheers!

Minstrel27

If you do not have a tuner in your home, tell them to go to hell.

Chef-1st

LOL. That was my thoughts exactly.
It would seem that because I did own a licence, they're adoment on pursuing this quest to get me to renew. He even checked out the specs of the LCD himself online and highlighted the fact that it could recieve and "external video source".
But sure this would be the case of any visual device (monitor/projector/etc)
And my assumption is that they don't require a licence.

So have they moved the goal posts I wonder, and are clamping down on people who were using this loophole??

Sam Russell

Chef-1st wrote: »

So have they moved the goal posts I wonder, and are clamping down on people who were using this loophole??

Yes they have moved the goal posts in the last broadcasting act. However my reading of the regulations is that you should not need a licence if you do not have a tuner, nor do you have broadband and do not have a computer with software for receiving TV from the internet. In other words, you cannot get TV.

I think the PS3 would not count.

However, they may keep at you till you pay. Stand firm.

Chef-1st

Yeah, none of my devices have tuners. (LCD Screen with no tuner & a monitor for the PC). My PC does not have a tuner card either.
I do have broadband though. Well, really midband **** (mobile BB), all I can get.

The old SKY satellite dish is still on the roof though. They aren't aware of this yet. It's not connected to anything (eg digibox, skybox, freeview, etc..) They may insist on this as their only get-out clause, if so, I will get up and remove it myself.

I understand it's about the TV device itself, not whether you watch TV or not, but I honestly thought this would be a way of getting around paying, since I don't watch TV and none have tuners.
I've emailed them a query in to this, see what they say and let you know. I'd love to get to the bottom of this once and for all.

:mad:

Chef-1st

got a reply email from the TV licence people.

"Television set" means any electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services 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 software or assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus

So, if the monitors are not capable, and never where capable of receiving a signal, no licence is required…

So at least I have something to use against this licence guy who says I have to get a licence for this Hitachi LCD Panel I have.

Sam Russell

Chef-1st wrote: »

got a reply email from the TV licence people.

"Television set" means any electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services 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 software or assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus

So, if the monitors are not capable, and never where capable of receiving a signal, no licence is required…

So at least I have something to use against this licence guy who says I have to get a licence for this Hitachi LCD Panel I have.

Yes, but I would take down the dish.

robtri

Chef-1st wrote: »

got a reply email from the TV licence people.

"Television set" means any electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services 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 software or assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus

So, if the monitors are not capable, and never where capable of receiving a signal, no licence is required…

So at least I have something to use against this licence guy who says I have to get a licence for this Hitachi LCD Panel I have.

actually they have you over a barrell, if the TV has scart or HDMI connections...
becuase the LCD unit can then be used as a TV with a SKY box, free sat box....
Technically as the wording is set out above all monitors are covered by this law, as you can buy exteranl analogue or digital TV tuners for all monitor with a vga connection...

Sam Russell

robtri wrote: »

actually they have you over a barrell, if the TV has scart or HDMI connections...
becuase the LCD unit can then be used as a TV with a SKY box, free sat box....
Technically as the wording is set out above all monitors are covered by this law, as you can buy exteranl analogue or digital TV tuners for all monitor with a vga connection...

I would not draw that conclusion. If there is no broadband, and no aerial, then there is no ability to receive the TV picture. You must be able to receive the signal, and exhibit it. So get rid of the dish.

robtri

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would not draw that conclusion. If there is no broadband, and no aerial, then there is no ability to receive the TV picture. You must be able to receive the signal, and exhibit it. So get rid of the dish.

the question isnot whether the op is or not look at TV..

The device in question is CAPABLE of recieving and exhibiting a TV signal.
therfore it is subject to the licence fee.

whether you recieve a signal or not, is not in question here...

Sam Russell

robtri wrote: »

the question isnot whether the op is or not look at TV..

The device in question is CAPABLE of recieving and exhibiting a TV signal.
therfore it is subject to the licence fee.

whether you recieve a signal or not, is not in question here...

The monitor is NOT capable of receiving a TV broadcast. It is capable of displaying the broadcast, but the definition calls for both conditions. If the OP does not have broadband, and does not have a tuner capable of receiving a broadcast then the monitor on its own cannot be decribed as any electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception.

The question can only be decided by a court, but I would be confident the OP would be found not to be liable to get a licence under the conditions described.

Hagar

They can't get you for the monitor but if you left up the Sky dish they can get you for that.

robtri

Sam Russell wrote: »

The monitor is NOT capable of receiving a TV broadcast. It is capable of displaying the broadcast, but the definition calls for both conditions. If the OP does not have broadband, and does not have a tuner capable of receiving a broadcast then the monitor on its own cannot be decribed as any electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception.

The question can only be decided by a court, but I would be confident the OP would be found not to be liable to get a licence under the conditions described.

and dont forget the part after that highlighted sentance
(whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction therewith)

and the OP has BB...

Sam Russell

robtri wrote: »

and dont forget the part after that highlighted sentance
(whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction therewith)

and the OP has BB...

Under the new definition, having the monitor, together with BB would make it dificult to prove an inability to receive TV, particularly if the dish is still up.

Just not having a cable to connect the monitor to the computer on BB would not be accepted as inability to display, I would think. If he has BB, it is difficult to see him succeding. He would have to prove he did not have the right software - very difficult.

Satdog

Sam Russell wrote: »

Under the new definition, having the monitor, together with BB would make it dificult to prove an inability to receive TV, particularly if the dish is still up.

Just not having a cable to connect the monitor to the computer on BB would not be accepted as inability to display, I would think. If he has BB, it is difficult to see him succeding. He would have to prove he did not have the right software - very difficult.

I think having the dish is irrelevant if the OP has no tuner card in the PC, or he doesn't have a STB. If however a tuner card or STB is acquired then the jigsaw is complete. BB is another issue, if you can receive RTE Player is a licence then required?

Chef-1st

Robtri is correct. The fact is, that I have a device capable of visually showing a TV broadcast (eg: LCD Sreen), whether or not it is used in conjunction with an external source (eg: Skybox).
This what the new new Broadcasting Act states anyway.
"whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction with it"

In that respect, any screen, whether it be a monitor, projector, laptop, or LCD panel, should require a licence. Yet I have 2 emails from the TV Licence Department, stating these devices do not require a licence.

So it is definitely a grey area, that even the enforcers are unsure of.
If it is a case, that I require a licence, regardless of whether I have BB or dish, then in theory, they should be enforcing this to every household in possession of any visual device.

Satdog

This might be a get out clause. Its from the Q&A section for a TV Licence from the Dept. Communications website, updated 19/3/10. I take it to mean that the computer includes the Screen.
Q. Do I require a television licence for a computer which can access television-like services (e.g. the RTÉ Player or streaming services) over the Internet?
A. No. So long as the computer is unable to display television channels distributed by conventional television broadcasting networks (i.e cable, satillite, IPTV, analogue terrestrial, digital terrestrial or MMDS) e.g. using a television tuner card or similar device, then there is no requirement to hold a television licence..

Sam Russell

Another example of a poorly drafted law. There is room to argue that you need to have a tuner, as the old definition required. This new definition is poorly drafted, as it does not say that. Typical of the shower in Kildare Street, who are only concerned at how much they get, and how much RTE 'Stars' get.


So get rid of the dish and you are OK.

Fuzzy Clam

No need to get rid of the dish.
Dish + screen alone cannot display television channels.
Get rid of the Sky box.

BB + PC + screen does not require a licence.

Sam Russell

That may well be right, but having an unused dish makes it more difficult to prove that you cannot receive TV. The tuner is in the LNB.

Chef-1st

I admit, it looks bad having an (unused) dish on the roof, but if he wants to pay to take it down, they can work away. As long as it is not in use (no skybox), it shouldn't be an issue. Neither is the BB an issue.

The bottom line here is that any visual device with input connections capable of connecting an external tuner/broadcasting device require a licence. So, scart, hdmi, etc... anything other that VGA/DVI.
His point was that because my LCD Panel has a HDMI connection, iSkyHD could be connected to it. Sure most current PC monitors come with a HDMI connection, so in theory, all them monitors require a licence too!
Been able to connect only SkyHD to my Panel is not enough of an excuse for me to pay €160 per year.

It's a ridiculous system. And yes you are right, it's typical dodgy amature wording from the Irish Gov. I've wrote off another letter, stating my displeasement. We'll see what he says back.

Also, I got an unrelated threathening letter about inspectors coming around my area to check for fraud. Stating fines and threats etc...
I say let them work away, come around, I've nothing to hide. I'm not trying to scam the system, I just don't want to pay for something I no longer use or require, and feel I should not have to pay for.

Fuzzy Clam

Chef-1st wrote: »

The bottom line here is that any visual device with input connections capable of connecting an external tuner/broadcasting device require a licence. So, scart, hdmi, etc... anything other that VGA/DVI.

Not correct.

If this was so, then any vga monitor would also require a licence as it can be connected to a pc with a tv card.

A. No. So long as the computer is unable to display television channels distributed by conventional television broadcasting networks (i.e cable, satillite, IPTV, analogue terrestrial, digital terrestrial or MMDS) e.g. using a television tuner card or similar device, then there is no requirement to hold a television licence.

Sam Russell

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

Not correct.

If this was so, then any vga monitor would also require a licence as it can be connected to a pc with a tv card.

A. No. So long as the computer is unable to display television channels distributed by conventional television broadcasting networks (i.e cable, satillite, IPTV, analogue terrestrial, digital terrestrial or MMDS) e.g. using a television tuner card or similar device, then there is no requirement to hold a television licence.

Exactly, and having a dish bolted to the wall is another piece of the jigsaw. If it were me, I would take it down.

Antenna

Sam Russell wrote: »

That may well be right, but having an unused dish makes it more difficult to prove that you cannot receive TV. The tuner is in the LNB.

The LNB amplifies the incoming signal and downconverts the satellite frequencies (around 11GHz) down to lower frequencies which will not have huge loss in the average run of co-ax cable. Also selects polarization.
It does not demodulate anything, so can't be referred to as a tuner?.

Chef-1st

Yeah, I don't think the dish is a big deal. It's a part of the house now!
I presume it's the Skybox that they'd have a beef with, and I don't have one.

I don't think they care about PC TV cards and the likes.
They only make a deal about it, if you've cable, or satellite on the house, sending signal to your house, to any visual apperatus, incl TV cards.
Any visual device that has coaxial, scart or HDMI connection seem to require a licence. This is the beef I think he has with me anyway.
They don't seem to care about monitors though, even those with HDMI.

I don't know, it's all mad. There are so many theories out there, and people talking about their own opinions, but no one can give me factual experience, or actual proof that the system can be bet. Am I the only pioneer???

I'll let you know what is said in the next threatening letter...
I'm not giving up on this anyway.

Rulmeq

Chef-1st wrote: »

Yeah, I don't think the dish is a big deal. It's a part of the house now!

Actually the dish is enough.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/consumer-affairs/media/tv_licences#rules

It's €13 per month, set up a DD, and forget about it.

Mike 1972

Rulmeq wrote: »

Actually the dish is enough.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/consumer-affairs/media/tv_licences#rules

This site is pure nonsense

Even if the television or other equipment is broken and currently unable to receive a signal, it is regarded as capable of being repaired so it can receive a signal and you must hold a licence for it.

Deactivated firearms dont require a firearms certificate, Vehicles which have been declared "Off the road" dont require Vehicle Excise Duty, why should TV sets be any different ?

A satellite dish can be used for things other than recieving broadcast TV (Radio and Broadband services for instance) If a TV licence is required for an aerial/dish then it is also required for a coat hanger or a three pin plug for crysakes

You do not require a television licence to watch television on your computer or mobile phone. However, you do require a licence if the computer is used together with any other apparatus to receive a signal.

Er does this mean that computers with integral tuner cards are exempt from TV licencing ? I seriously doubt it.

Rulmeq wrote: »

It's €13 per month, set up a DD, and forget about it.

If you are in the habit of paying for services you dont use when it is not legally required perhaps you would be good enough to PM me your bank account details.

Now can we have a link to the relevent act of the Oireachtas and/or statutory instrument that states one needs a licence for a HDMI or SCART enabled monitor assuming of course such legislation actually exists.

Chef-1st

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Now can we have a link to the relevent act of the Oireachtas and/or statutory instrument that states one needs a licence for a HDMI or SCART enabled monitor assuming of course such legislation actually exists.

This is what I want to get to the bottom of too. I want to know what does and what doesn't require a licence. If I get a reply saying monitors and projectors don't need a licence, then I'll be taking it all the way with my "LCD Panel", as technically, it's just a monitor.
If he comes back saying any visual apperatus with an input connection able to receive broadcast via an external device, then they'd better have proof on paper, and also that they're enforcing this, because I'd say that puts most of the country in need of a licence! There will be a lot of unhappy people out there. I'll be taking this to court or my local TD if this is the case.

jhegarty

Rulmeq wrote: »

Actually the dish is enough.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/consumer-affairs/media/tv_licences#rules

It's €13 per month, set up a DD, and forget about it.

Read that again.

It says:

"Every household, business or institution in Ireland with a television or equipment capable of receiving a television signal (using an aerial, satellite dish, cable or other means) must have a television licence"

It's the television or equipment capable of receiving a television sign that requite the license, not the aerial , dish or cable.

If an dish + lnb require a license then so does a coat hanger.

Sam Russell

From the 2009 Broacasting Act, it has the following definition:

“television set” means any electronic apparatus capable of receiving
and exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general
reception (whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on
the use of anything else in conjunction with it) and any software or
assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus;

From this, the LCD panel, the OP should describe the LCD panel as a computer monitor. The dish would also give rise to the interpretation as being able to be iused as something able to be for the use of anything else in conjunction with it to make it a TV.

Very bad wording, but that is what the act says. Having the equipment, working or not, requires a licence.

Mike 1972

Sam Russell wrote: »

“television set” means any electronic apparatus capable of receiving
and exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general
reception (whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on
the use of anything else in conjunction with it) and any software or
assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus;
............... Having the equipment, working or not, requires a licence.

You are pretty spot on apart from the "working or not" bit given that the word "capable" is in there.

On the other hand the definition is ludicrously wide ranging. Is there a seperate definition for "electronic apparatus". Would a single electronic component (say an IN4148 diode) qualify or does it have to be assembled into some kind of device ?

Is a mains lead or plug an "electronic apparatus" ?

Is an aerial an "electronic apparatus". How elaborate does it have to be to qualify (piece of wire ????) Given that Band 3 is used for both DAB radio and Analouge TV is an aerial covering band 3 included ? What about a length of coaxial cable ?

And what of computer components (CPU, RAM etc) these could (if coupled with a Tuner card) form a TV set so are they covered even if they are not ?

What about something like a Windows or Linux CD ("software") or Hard drive with an O/S installed these could be used with TV tuner card software even if there is no software of this sort actually present ?

Sam Russell

Mike 1972 wrote: »

You are pretty spot on apart from the "working or not" bit given that the word "capable" is in there.

On the other hand the definition is ludicrously wide ranging. Is there a seperate definition for "electronic apparatus". Would a single electronic component (say an IN4148 diode) qualify or does it have to be assembled into some kind of device ?

Is a mains lead or plug an "electronic apparatus" ?

Is an aerial an "electronic apparatus". How elaborate does it have to be to qualify (piece of wire ????) Given that Band 3 is used for both DAB radio and Analouge TV is an aerial covering band 3 included ? What about a length of coaxial cable ?

And what of computer components (CPU, RAM etc) these could (if coupled with a Tuner card) form a TV set so are they covered even if they are not ?

What about something like a Windows or Linux CD ("software") or Hard drive with an O/S installed these could be used with TV tuner card software even if there is no software of this sort actually present ?

If something is broken, it is capable of repair, and therefor capable of fulfilling its original purpose.

Electronic means it has electronic components. The piece of wire is only electrical, not electronic. To have a TV, you must have a display, otherwise it is a radio. To receive TV images, you need a tuner. A tuner is a device that can convert frequencies from one band to another. This is the function of the LNB. The definition has been rewritten to catch component systems, such as amonitor, with a seperate tuner. The key component is the tuner, which is hard for a plod inspector to identify, given the huge variety. But a dish is easy to spot, as is a dirty great LCD screen.

It would be costly to fight this in court, but easier to convince the inspector that you do not have a tuner. Get rid of the dish.

Mike 1972

Sam Russell wrote: »

If something is broken, it is capable of repair, and therefor capable of fulfilling its original purpose..

If something is broken it is not capable of fulfilling its original purpose until its repaired. If something is broken to the extent that it would be uneconomic to repair then arguing with someone with such an item is breaching TV licence law is akin to suggesting that someone with no TV set is breaching TV licence law as they are capable of buying a new TV. Its a ludicrous proposition.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Electronic means it has electronic components. The piece of wire is only electrical, not electronic...

A piece of wire has inductance, resistance and wotnot. An aerial or dish (minus the LNB) usually doesnt have any electronic components either

Sam Russell wrote: »

To have a TV, you must have a display, otherwise it is a radio. ...

So if I have a satellite dish, LNB, reciever, and audio amplifier/speakers but no display Im in the clear (since I only have a "radio") but hang on arent some of these items capable of being used as part of a TV set up
????

A lot of contradictions here

Sam Russell

@ Mike1972: The OP was asking a question, I am trying to answer it but the law in this matter is unclear and poorly drafted, and will, ultimately be decided by a judge listening to legal arguement. It would be expensive for the OP to get involved in such a process, and I would consider him/her foolhardy to risk such involvement unnecessarily.

He makes that decision for himself, I have made my point and expanded to aid others who may consider themselves in a like position. They take from my words what they will, but it is at their own risk. If they want a legal opinion, they should consult a lawyer, and presumable pay his/her fee.

The semantics are for the birds, the law is decided by a judge, but if he finds against the OP, it could be expensive.

Chef-1st

Well in the wording itself, it is a "Television Licence".
Your paying a fee for a posession of the Television, nothing more.
A television been cabable of receiving and displaying video broadcasts.
As I said, the dish on the roof doesn't do me any favours, but your not paying this annual fee for having a Sky dish on your roof.

And if it's taken to court, it's them who take me to court, I just have to state my case, don't think it would cost me much at all.
Hopefully, it shouldn't come to that. I have yet to find one person who has fought the system and won though, so it's hard to say which way this will go.

Mike 1972

Sam Russell wrote: »

@ Mike1972: The OP was asking a question, I am trying to answer

Er you seem to think Im picking some kind of argument with you when Im actually highlighting the ludicrous wording of the law and the even more ludicrous interpretations of it on Government run websites.

Sam Russell wrote: »

the law in this matter is unclear and poorly drafted,.

So were all agreed then ?

Rulmeq

Interesting, I would have been of the opinion that "equipment capable of receiving a television signal" would have applied to dishes/antennae, but there are good arguments here against that - I still think "equipment" is vague enough for them to argue their case, but it's also vague enough for a counter argument.

Chef-1st wrote: »

And if it's taken to court, it's them who take me to court, I just have to state my case, don't think it would cost me much at all.

Unless you're unemployed a day in court will cost you more than the annual licence (and if you were unemployed, you wouldn't have to pay for it, I believe). Although, if you win, you would save money in the long run. But if you lose, you will face a fine up to €1000 - I haven't seen a judge award that much, but you may get a cranky old coote.

Chef-1st wrote: »

Hopefully, it shouldn't come to that. I have yet to find one person who has fought the system and won though, so it's hard to say which way this will go.

It would be nice if there was a way to test this without going to court.

Mike 1972

Rulmeq wrote: »

Unless you're unemployed a day in court will cost you more than the annual licence.

Surely if one was to win such a case then costs would be awarded in their favour ?

Unfortunately even one were to succeed in getting a case struck out in the district court it wouldnt do much in the way of establishing a legal precedent that others could follow

Rulmeq wrote: »

It would be nice if there was a way to test this without going to court.

Its a bad state of affairs that the only practical way to clarify a badly drafted law is to provoke the authorities into attempting to prosecute one under it.

Rulmeq

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Surely if one was to win such a case then costs would be awarded in their favour ?

I've never gotten my wages paid, for a day in court.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Its a bad state of affairs that the only practical way to clarify a badly drafted law is to provoke the authorities into attempting to prosecute one under it.

Although, I get the feeling they would "clarify" it in a way that might make it worse. I'm thinking they might decide to charge per TV, or some such...

Fuzzy Clam

A broken tv is subject to a licence. That is a fact, I'm afraid. How much the TV is broken before it's exempt, I don't know.

There are only 2 parts to the equation. A display and a receiver/tuner. Not an antenna nor a dish nor an LNB.

Both of these do not need to be connected to each other, just capable of it.

A display, no matter what type it is, is NOT capable of displaying a television broadcast, as defined, without a Sky box, Tv card, VCR, etc, etc, etc.

Ultimately, it's up to "them" to prove that you are evading the licence fee, not you to prove otherwise.

Unless you do have something to hide, let them do their worst.:)

Chef-1st

Fuzzy Clam, I'm not 100% yet, but I don't think your right there.
I don't think you need the two parts to fulfill the equation.
A disply in itself seems to be enough to require a licence.

Rulmeq, they definitely don't charge per TV, the licence is specifically for a household.
But what they could do is change the law so that any display capable of receiving visual broadcast would be deemed liable for a licence. (Eg: PC monitor with hdmi or multiple input connections).

Scary thought eh! There would be uproar. :rolleyes:

Fuzzy Clam

The reason In think that is because a PC monitor does not require a licence unless the PC has a tuner card.
In my interpretation, the same logic applies. Neither is capable of displaying TV pictures without other hardware.

Or maybe I'm completely wrong

Satdog

Chef-1st wrote: »

Fuzzy Clam, I'm not 100% yet, but I don't think your right there.
I don't think you need the two parts to fulfill the equation.
A disply in itself seems to be enough to require a licence.

Rulmeq, they definitely don't charge per TV, the licence is specifically for a household.
But what they could do is change the law so that any display capable of receiving visual broadcast would be deemed liable for a licence. (Eg: PC monitor with hdmi or multiple input connections).

Scary thought eh! There would be uproar. :rolleyes:

As the law stands I don't see how a monitor/display/screen can require a licence especially if part of a computer without a tuner card. See post 17 above.

Satdog

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

The reason In think that is because a PC monitor does not require a licence unless the PC has a tuner card.
In my interpretation, the same logic applies. Neither is capable of displaying TV pictures without other hardware.

Or maybe I'm completely wrong

I'm with you on that one.

Rulmeq

Chef-1st wrote: »

Rulmeq, they definitely don't charge per TV, the licence is specifically for a household.
Scary thought eh! There would be uproar. :rolleyes:

lol, yeah, I was just saying the might decide to rewrite the law.

Chef-1st

Hey look, I'm totally with you on this.
This is why I bought an LCD screen with no tuner, so I wouldn't have to pay the licence. But this guys seems to think that because it has a HDMI input, SkyHD could be connected, therefore fits the description of a TV, as stated in the broadcasting act. Chancing his arm I reckon, we'll have to see where it goes.

My point is, that most LCD monitors + projectors today come with HDMI inputs, so in theory..........

Chef-1st

I happened to come across this old post there, and thought I'd give you all closure on my TV licence situation.
As it turned out, after a few letters back and forth with the head guy in the licencing department, he gave up, and they sent out an inspector to my home. As I stated previously, I got rid of Sky (and the dish off my roof), and I got rid of every TV in the home and replaced it with a TV panel without an in-built tuner (technically a big monitor).

Inspector came, I told him the story about not watching TV anymore; have my PS3 console to an LCD panel, even though the TV licence head guy was adomant it was a television I had; PC and monitor upstairs; etc etc. I offered him to come in and check this for himself, he said no that's fine, wrote me out a docket stating I had no TV in the home, and off he went. Haven't heard a word since! So I've saved 3-4 years of no licence fee, which is great, as I shouldn't have to pay it.

Have never got Sky back, which I don't miss. And still have the LCD panel in the living room. I stream shows totally online now. I hear there will be a new "all-in-one broadcasting licence" coming out in the future though. So anyone with broadband or TV (basically everyone) will have to pay. No avoiding it then really, but until then, I'll continue saving money.