It sounds absurd, but I can kind of see how it would happen. My guess is that the laws for TV licenses were written before smart phones were a thing. These laws probably have some definition of what a TV like "a screen plugged into a power outlet that can receive live, over the air video" and a smart phone happens to meet that definition when it's plugged in. It takes time and effort to update these laws and no one actually cares enough to do it. Some lawyer at Starbucks noticed this quirk and is covering the companies ass, but at the end of the day, no one actually gives a shit.
The legislation hinges on the definition of a TV Receiver.
368Meanings of “television receiver” and “use”
(1)In this Part “television receiver” means any apparatus of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State setting out the descriptions of apparatus that are to be television receivers for the purposes of this Part.
(2)Regulations under this section defining a television receiver may provide for references to such a receiver to include references to software used in association with apparatus.
[F9(3)References in this Part to using a television receiver are references to using it for—
(a)receiving all or any part of any television programme, or
(b)receiving all or any part of a programme included in an on-demand programme service which is provided by the BBC,and that reference to the provision of an on-demand programme service by the BBC is to be read in accordance with section 368R(5) and (6).]
(4)The power to make regulations under this section defining a television receiver includes power to modify subsection (3).
Some businesses dont want the aggravation from the state.
However this is where it gets interesting, my interpretation of this law would mean every laptop, tablet and smartphone would need a tv licence if a UK resident and without a tv licence you cant even stream live events off streaming services like Youtube.
The BBC also have the legal right to spy on you, in the same way utility companies can without court orders, even tax inspectors have more rights to spy than the police, so considering the BBC journalistic endeavours, this unlegislated right to keep journalist sources secret even from courts, have the BBC got a state legislated licence to hack the world?
I'll probably get more hassle on the street for this comment from those around me for pointing the above out.
