A letter from the lovely TV license people

TenLeftFingers

I bought a very oldand cheap CRT TV to use with an old computer that doesn't support modern monitors

Although I've only had it on to test that it works with the computer, I got a letter from the TV license people telling me that a TV 'was observed.

Since I don't intend on ever watching any TV, is it possible to remove the offending component that can receive terrestrial TV signal but still use the A/V inputs for my vintage computer?

pickarooney

TenLeftFingers wrote: »

I bought a very oldand cheap CRT TV to use with an old computer that doesn't support modern monitors

Although I've only had it on to test that it works with the computer, I got a letter from the TV license people telling me that a TV 'was observed.

Since I don't intend on ever watching any TV, is it possible to remove the offending component that can receive terrestrial TV signal but still use the A/V inputs for my vintage computer?

Observed how? Did they come into you house?

TheChizler

Generally they can argue that they are capable of being repaired. I have heard of a case where someone proved that they had disabled the receiver part beyond repair and got away with it.

Stillhouette

pickarooney wrote: »

Observed how? Did they come into you house?

I am interested in this. How exactly did they observe?

timetogo

TenLeftFingers wrote: »

Since I don't intend on ever watching any TV, is it possible to remove the offending component that can receive terrestrial TV signal but still use the A/V inputs for my vintage computer?

I asked them that question before. They said no. The TV could be repaired.

Scrap the TV and buy a monitor. It's cheaper than the license. There's talk about bringing in a household tax for this but this has being going on for years. It's at least a year away probably way more.

Help!!!!

Stillhouette wrote: »

I am interested in this. How exactly did they observe?

Through the window......peeping tom's

Stillhouette

timetogo wrote: »

I asked them that question before. They said no. The TV could be repaired.

Scrap the TV and buy a monitor. It's cheaper than the license. There's talk about bringing in a household tax for this but this has being going on for years. It's at least a year away probably way more.

It has been scrapped.

TenLeftFingers

TheChizler wrote: »

Generally they can argue that they are capable of being repaired. I have heard of a case where someone proved that they had disabled the receiver part beyond repair and got away with it.

Yes, I've just come across the details and you are correct.

Stillhouette wrote: »

I am interested in this. How exactly did they observe?

I have no idea. Unless they somehow saw me wobbling up the steps with it. It can't even receive a signal since the country has gone digital. I'll bet they are bluffing but I wonder how likely it is to be a coincidence that the first TV set in my home in years is followed by such a letter only a week later?

timetogo wrote: »

I asked them that question before. They said no. The TV could be repaired.

Scrap the TV and buy a monitor. It's cheaper than the license. There's talk about bringing in a household tax for this but this has being going on for years. It's at least a year away probably way more.

I wanted to go this route since I have a spare monitor, but unfortunately this beloved vintage computer of mine is thirty years old and outputs at frequencies of (RF output and Composite output options) 15.75kHz which is far below what modern displays will render on screen.

TenLeftFingers

I think I may have figured out why I got that letter

The last time I parked in my driveway I noticed something different - you can see a Dell flat-panel monitor on a window sill at the front of the house. Normally the curtain is kept closed but a week ago I opened it So maybe they saw that in the window sill and are taking a chance. It's odd because we live in a quiet area - how often would they need to be cruising around here to spot that within a few days?

smellslikeshoes

I'd say a more likely scenario is the timing is coincidental and they are just chancing their arm with "observed".

stronglikebull

They send the same generic letters to everyone without a licence, so it's likely that they didn't observe anything. The majority of houses without a TV licence do actually have a TV, so it works in most cases.

As far as I know, even if your TV is old and cannot receive current digital broadcasts, you still need a licence for it. Your only way to avoid it would be to replace it with an old monitor that can display the signal from your computer. Either that or continue without a licence and risk eventual prosecution.

Dr Crippen

I cancelled UPC, don't have Saorview but the TV is still in the house do you still need a license?

I would have thought that UPC would notify them or they could contact UPC to verify no TV usage. Its a bit mad the way they feel they can bill you even though your not using it?

If you had a car in your drive that is never used, do you still have to tax it even though its not on the road but the potential is there to drive it?

TenLeftFingers

Dr Crippen wrote: »

If you had a car in your drive that is never used, do you still have to tax it even though its not on the road but the potential is there to drive it?

Good point. But as StrongLikeBull says above there are likely only two options since the law is fixed. See the links I posted if you're interested in the details.

The_Captain

UPC won't give any info to the TV Licence people. They (rightly) argue that it's massively damaging to their business

Dr Crippen

Yeah I though as much about that, seems f'ing demented that you have to pay for purely having purchased a TV. If you have no connection whatsoever to satellite, terrestrial or saorview, then you are paying for just having a defunct TV in your house.

It goes beyond the remit of copyright law in fairness. You are not viewing or consuming public broadcasting and therefore should not be liable for the charge. What a country we live in.

Looking at that link it says there is no license required for use through mobile or laptop, so what if you are using chromecast on the TV?

"You do not require a television licence to watch television on your computer or mobile phone. However, the computer must not be able to receive a signal distributed by conventional television broadcasting networks, for example, cable, satellite or aerial."

timetogo

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Looking at that link it says there is no license required for use through mobile or laptop, so what if you are using chromecast on the TV?

"You do not require a television licence to watch television on your computer or mobile phone. However, the computer must not be able to receive a signal distributed by conventional television broadcasting networks, for example, cable, satellite or aerial."

You've answered your own question. If you're using a TV it's

"able to receive a signal distributed by conventional television broadcasting networks, for example, cable, satellite or aerial."

I agree with you though. If I could buy a big enough monitor I'd save myself €150 odd a year.

Dr Crippen

Yeah as I say it seems bizarre as the usage is not outside of the domestic circle, so on that basis music copyright royalty collection is voided.

So essentially we are funding RTE by not watching it, brilliant

TheChizler

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Yeah I though as much about that, seems f'ing demented that you have to pay for purely having purchased a TV. If you have no connection whatsoever to satellite, terrestrial or saorview, then you are paying for just having a defunct TV in your house.

It goes beyond the remit of copyright law in fairness. You are not viewing or consuming public broadcasting and therefore should not be liable for the charge. What a country we live in.

Looking at that link it says there is no license required for use through mobile or laptop, so what if you are using chromecast on the TV?

"You do not require a television licence to watch television on your computer or mobile phone. However, the computer must not be able to receive a signal distributed by conventional television broadcasting networks, for example, cable, satellite or aerial."

It's comparable to a gun licence actually (well aware guns are capable of lots of harm!). You need a gun licence if you own a gun even if you don't have any bullets. Now there are much better reasons for keeping guns licenced and registered but it's a similar concept.

Dr Crippen

Thats a bit apples and oranges, with respect.

How else would you play tiger woods on the playstation or watch an auld dvd? I just think its a bit ridiculous paying for the privilege of having a tv in your house.

Antar Bolaeisk

TenLeftFingers wrote: »

I have no idea. Unless they somehow saw me wobbling up the steps with it. It can't even receive a signal since the country has gone digital. I'll bet they are bluffing but I wonder how likely it is to be a coincidence that the first TV set in my home in years is followed by such a letter only a week later?

If it's no longer capable of receiving a broadcast signal anymore does it still require a license?

TheChizler

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

If it's no longer capable of receiving a broadcast signal anymore does it still require a license?

If it has the capability to receive and display a signal than yes, doesn't specify whether the signal is there or not. If the presence of a signal mattered then people living in the Black Valley in Kerry for instance wouldn't need a licence.