I have long since cancelled my sky subscription, as part of cost saving measures. I still have the TV even though it's not used. I have no aerial.
Does having the "apparatus" i.e. tv in the house mean i am liable for the TV Licence even though it's not used (except to watch the occassional DVD) ?
I just don't get why you would suggest dropping the sky subscription. I am an extremely satisfied sky customer. As far as I can see I get very little for my tv licence where as I am happy to pay my sky subscription because I get quality and quantity.
T
Myself and himself have discussed getting rid of the tv/ntl a number of times - but its the watching of dvd's that we keep it for - meaning we gotta pay the licence fee, despite having no interest in the terrestial channels.
You do NOT need a television license to watch DVD's, once none of the equipment used has a R/F tuner capable of receiving TV signals.
Yes, I am aware of this - but currently we use our (quite newish) tv - so in order to get something to watch dvd's on its more expense for us - so we just use what we currently have.
Im not even sure how or where one would buy a 'screen' that wasnt capable of receiving TV signals?
99% of monitors (PC/CCTV/ etc.) do not have tuners.
But where does it say in the legislation that you have to have a tuner?
Would it not be prohibitively expensive to buy a monitor the same size as a tv? Our tv isnt that big - but Ive never seen a monitor that size.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?