Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

All things being equal, you are bound to lose.


aus+uk / uk.tech.digital-tv / TV Licensing

SubjectAuthor
* TV Licensinggareth evans
+- Re: TV LicensingJNugent
+- Re: TV LicensingMark Carver
+* Re: TV LicensingRoger Wilmut
|`- Re: TV LicensingBrian Gaff \(Sofa\)
+- Re: TV LicensingMrSpud fy
+* Re: TV LicensingRoderick Stewart
|+* Re: TV LicensingMB
||`* Re: TV LicensingBrightsideS9
|| `- Re: TV LicensingMB
|+* Re: TV LicensingNorman Wells
||+* Re: TV LicensingRoderick Stewart
|||`* Re: TV LicensingNorman Wells
||| `* Re: TV LicensingRoderick Stewart
|||  `* Re: TV LicensingNY
|||   `- Re: TV LicensingNorman Wells
||`- Re: TV LicensingJNugent
|`* Re: TV LicensingJNugent
| `* Re: TV LicensingRoderick Stewart
|  `* Re: TV LicensingNorman Wells
|   +* Re: TV LicensingJNugent
|   |`* Re: TV LicensingNorman Wells
|   | +* Re: TV LicensingNY
|   | |+* Re: TV LicensingTweed
|   | ||+* Re: TV LicensingNY
|   | |||`* Re: TV LicensingJNugent
|   | ||| `* Re: TV LicensingNorman Wells
|   | |||  +* Re: TV LicensingJNugent
|   | |||  |`* Re: TV LicensingNorman Wells
|   | |||  | `* Re: TV LicensingJNugent
|   | |||  |  +* Re: TV LicensingNorman Wells
|   | |||  |  |`- Re: TV LicensingJNugent
|   | |||  |  `* Re: TV LicensingMax Demian
|   | |||  |   +* Re: TV LicensingJNugent
|   | |||  |   |`* Re: TV LicensingMax Demian
|   | |||  |   | `* Re: TV LicensingJNugent
|   | |||  |   |  `* Re: TV LicensingMax Demian
|   | |||  |   |   `* Re: TV LicensingIndy Jess John
|   | |||  |   |    +- Re: TV LicensingDavid Woolley
|   | |||  |   |    `* Re: TV LicensingJNugent
|   | |||  |   |     `* Re: TV LicensingIndy Jess John
|   | |||  |   |      `* Re: TV LicensingRoderick Stewart
|   | |||  |   |       `- Re: TV LicensingTweed
|   | |||  |   `- Re: TV LicensingNorman Wells
|   | |||  `* Re: TV LicensingRoderick Stewart
|   | |||   `* Re: TV LicensingNorman Wells
|   | |||    `* Re: TV LicensingRoderick Stewart
|   | |||     `* Re: TV LicensingNorman Wells
|   | |||      `* Re: TV LicensingRoderick Stewart
|   | |||       +- Re: TV LicensingIndy Jess John
|   | |||       `* Re: TV LicensingNorman Wells
|   | |||        +* Re: TV Licensingcharles
|   | |||        |+* Re: TV LicensingChris Green
|   | |||        ||`* Re: TV Licensingcharles
|   | |||        || `* Re: TV LicensingChris Green
|   | |||        ||  `- Re: TV Licensingcharles
|   | |||        |`* Re: TV LicensingMax Demian
|   | |||        | +* Re: TV Licensingcharles
|   | |||        | |`- Re: TV LicensingJNugent
|   | |||        | `- Re: TV LicensingJNugent
|   | |||        `* Re: TV LicensingDavid Woolley
|   | |||         +- Re: TV LicensingRobin
|   | |||         +- Re: TV LicensingNorman Wells
|   | |||         +- Re: TV LicensingRoderick Stewart
|   | |||         `* Re: TV LicensingJim Lesurf
|   | |||          `* Re: TV LicensingDavid Woolley
|   | |||           `* Re: TV LicensingJim Lesurf
|   | |||            `- Re: TV LicensingDavid Woolley
|   | ||`* Re: TV LicensingRoderick Stewart
|   | || `* Re: TV LicensingDavid Woolley
|   | ||  `* Re: TV LicensingMax Demian
|   | ||   +- Re: TV LicensingBrightsideS9
|   | ||   `* Re: TV Licensingtim...
|   | ||    `* Re: TV LicensingMax Demian
|   | ||     +* Re: TV LicensingJNugent
|   | ||     |`* Re: TV LicensingMax Demian
|   | ||     | `- Re: TV LicensingJNugent
|   | ||     `* Re: TV Licensingtim...
|   | ||      `* Re: TV LicensingMax Demian
|   | ||       `- Re: TV Licensingtim...
|   | |+- Re: TV LicensingNorman Wells
|   | |`- Re: TV LicensingMB
|   | `* Re: TV LicensingJNugent
|   |  +* Re: TV LicensingTweed
|   |  |`* Re: TV LicensingJNugent
|   |  | +- Re: TV Licensingcharles
|   |  | `* Re: TV LicensingTweed
|   |  |  `- Re: TV LicensingJNugent
|   |  `* Re: TV LicensingNorman Wells
|   |   `* Re: TV LicensingJNugent
|   |    `* Re: TV LicensingNorman Wells
|   |     `- Re: TV LicensingJNugent
|   +* Re: TV Licensingwilliamwright
|   |`* Re: TV LicensingNorman Wells
|   | +- Re: TV Licensingwilliamwright
|   | `- Re: TV LicensingJim Lesurf
|   `* Re: TV LicensingNY
|    +* Re: TV LicensingNorman Wells
|    |+- Re: TV LicensingMB
|    |`* Re: TV LicensingNY
|    | `- Re: TV LicensingNorman Wells
|    `* Re: TV LicensingMB
`- Re: TV LicensingBrian Gaff \(Sofa\)

Pages:12345
TV Licensing

<sdu0g0$3uk$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25183&group=uk.tech.digital-tv#25183

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: headston...@yahoo.com (gareth evans)
Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Subject: TV Licensing
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 11:38:51 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <sdu0g0$3uk$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:38:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="3249cf2ceb90e292670ade3186b27c5d";
logging-data="4052"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+bT0VHuyT3ly/gwXMFocDd"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/45.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eQe2sCRuVs1ONqrD8JUyX0igewQ=
X-Mozilla-News-Host: snews://news.eternal-september.org:563
 by: gareth evans - Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:38 UTC

I wonder if there is a legal loophole making the
current TV licence fee illegal, in that it is
based upon line scanning technology whereas
today's TV is digital, DVB2, where whole and
partial pictures are transmitted?

Also, if the Brit misgovernment cannot see
what is wrong with the BBC TV licence fee, can
they at least set it by law to a more reasonable
level such as £75 pa?

Also, if Michel Roux was dropped by the BBC for
sponsoring Albert Bartlett potatoes, how come
Gary Lineker remains as so great a parasite
on the licence fee following his stint as
an advertiser of Walker's Crisps?

Re: TV Licensing

<imfh44Fht92U2@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25184&group=uk.tech.digital-tv#25184

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: jennings...@fastmail.fm (JNugent)
Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Subject: Re: TV Licensing
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 12:18:28 +0100
Organization: Home User
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <imfh44Fht92U2@mid.individual.net>
References: <sdu0g0$3uk$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: jennings&co@fastmail.fm
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net Mt3Sj5JvMP4t6eZS9VVQ0gXHy1ogM4/iT7f3G3DckxcLRudR7O
Cancel-Lock: sha1:W2s87+qF0Zlj0L3hZNb/ELqmwfY=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/60.6.1
In-Reply-To: <sdu0g0$3uk$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 210729-0, 7/29/2021), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
 by: JNugent - Thu, 29 Jul 2021 11:18 UTC

On 29/07/2021 11:38 am, gareth evans wrote:

> I wonder if there is a legal loophole making the
> current TV licence fee illegal, in that it is
> based upon line scanning technology whereas
> today's TV is digital, DVB2, where whole and
> partial pictures are transmitted?
>
> Also, if the Brit misgovernment cannot see
> what is wrong with the BBC TV licence fee, can
> they at least set it by law to a more reasonable
> level such as £75 pa?
>
> Also, if Michel Roux was dropped by the BBC for
> sponsoring Albert Bartlett potatoes, how come
> Gary Lineker remains as so great a parasite
> on the licence fee following his stint as
> an advertiser of Walker's Crisps?

I am glad to see that there is one thing upon which we can partly agree.

Re: TV Licensing

<imfhf4Fi1fiU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25185&group=uk.tech.digital-tv#25185

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!lilly.ping.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: mark.car...@invalid.invalid (Mark Carver)
Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Subject: Re: TV Licensing
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 12:24:20 +0100
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <imfhf4Fi1fiU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <sdu0g0$3uk$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net Vy9Hssmi907hsUjVAgIaxwZuP72qPZdPcGDLMtJqnUMtFMy5Y=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6X3mZ029cUnVz47epUI2WMj27A4=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.12.0
In-Reply-To: <sdu0g0$3uk$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: Mark Carver - Thu, 29 Jul 2021 11:24 UTC

On 29/07/2021 11:38, gareth evans wrote:
> Also, if Michel Roux was dropped by the BBC for
> sponsoring Albert Bartlett potatoes, how come
> Gary Lineker remains as so great a parasite
> on the licence fee following his stint as
> an advertiser of Walker's Crisps?

The BBC forbid their performers to appear in ads for products that are
related to their presenting duties.
They can appear in ads for things unrelated, which is the loophole
Gazzer Lineker exploits

Re: TV Licensing

<sduhj5$vik$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25186&group=uk.tech.digital-tv#25186

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ema...@domain.com (Roger Wilmut)
Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Subject: Re: TV Licensing
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 16:30:45 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <sduhj5$vik$1@dont-email.me>
References: <sdu0g0$3uk$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="af94bcfac50e35087aa4a562899b9ab7";
logging-data="32340"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX183PUdQxdNvbfQQYV+2dKBevfsLt0Z6m+s="
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dBaTXPi88fsaJ8Liix3yYbQiT3I=
 by: Roger Wilmut - Thu, 29 Jul 2021 15:30 UTC

On 2021-07-29 10:38:51 +0000, gareth evans said:

> I wonder if there is a legal loophole making the
> current TV licence fee illegal, in that it is
> based upon line scanning technology whereas
> today's TV is digital, DVB2, where whole and
> partial pictures are transmitted?

'Based on line scanning technology': no it isn't. I quote:

"This licence lets you use and install TV receiving equipment at the
licensed place. You are covered to:
a) watch and record programmes as they’re being shown on TV or live on
an online TV service, including programmes streamed over the internet
and satellite programmes from outside the UK, and
b) watch or download BBC programmes on demand, including catch up TV,
on BBC iPlayer.
This can be on any device, including TVs, desktop computers, laptops,
mobile phones, tablets, games consoles, digital boxes, DVD, Blu-ray and
VHS recorders, or anything else."
and
"Even if you have a black and white TV, you need a colour licence to
record programmes. This is because DVD, VHS and digital box recorders
record in colour. A black and white licence is only valid if you use a
digital box that can’t record TV programmes."

The Oxford Dictionary defenition of television:

"A system for converting visual images (with sound) into electrical
signals, transmitting them by radio or other means, and displaying them
electronically on a screen."

Re: TV Licensing

<sduj5d$ead$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25187&group=uk.tech.digital-tv#25187

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!T82FeZt+ua9clnYoA1RLIQ.user.46.165.242.91.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: MrSpud...@oai_di1dm3k655zjt.eu
Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Subject: Re: TV Licensing
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 15:57:33 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <sduj5d$ead$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <sdu0g0$3uk$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="14669"; posting-host="T82FeZt+ua9clnYoA1RLIQ.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: MrSpud...@oai_di1dm3k655zjt.eu - Thu, 29 Jul 2021 15:57 UTC

On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 11:38:51 +0100
gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I wonder if there is a legal loophole making the
>current TV licence fee illegal, in that it is
>based upon line scanning technology whereas
>today's TV is digital, DVB2, where whole and
>partial pictures are transmitted?
>
>Also, if the Brit misgovernment cannot see
>what is wrong with the BBC TV licence fee, can
>they at least set it by law to a more reasonable
>level such as £75 pa?
>
>Also, if Michel Roux was dropped by the BBC for
>sponsoring Albert Bartlett potatoes, how come
>Gary Lineker remains as so great a parasite
>on the licence fee following his stint as
>an advertiser of Walker's Crisps?

I sometimes wonder if that Lineker prick has some dirt on someone because it
doesn't seem to matter what he does he never even gets reprimanded never mind
fired. Gary wants to tweet his political ideology? No problem for the Beeb.
Anyone else? Formal warning or out the door.

Re: TV Licensing

<pc67ggdm1mui82kph2pn56fhq3bq1u2dpr@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25190&group=uk.tech.digital-tv#25190

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc3.netnews.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!fx09.ams1.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: rjf...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk (Roderick Stewart)
Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Subject: Re: TV Licensing
Message-ID: <pc67ggdm1mui82kph2pn56fhq3bq1u2dpr@4ax.com>
References: <sdu0g0$3uk$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 45
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 07:51:00 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 2795
 by: Roderick Stewart - Fri, 30 Jul 2021 06:51 UTC

On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 11:38:51 +0100, gareth evans
<headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I wonder if there is a legal loophole making the
>current TV licence fee illegal, in that it is
>based upon line scanning technology whereas
>today's TV is digital, DVB2, where whole and
>partial pictures are transmitted?
>
>Also, if the Brit misgovernment cannot see
>what is wrong with the BBC TV licence fee, can
>they at least set it by law to a more reasonable
>level such as £75 pa?
>
>Also, if Michel Roux was dropped by the BBC for
>sponsoring Albert Bartlett potatoes, how come
>Gary Lineker remains as so great a parasite
>on the licence fee following his stint as
>an advertiser of Walker's Crisps?

The legal need to buy a licence is based on what you watch or record,
not on the technology you use to do it, though oddly it is sometimes
based on the power source for said technology. If you use a portable
device away from home and already have a licence for your home, then
you don't need another licence for the portable device *as long as it
is powered by its own internal battery*.

I'm not sure of the legal position of a laptop that is connected to
its charger, but there seems no reason to expect it to make sense
(because not much else does). Would the charger be regarded as
powering the laptop, and therefore count as an external power supply
so requiring a licence, or would it be seen as charging the battery
while the internal battery was actually powering the laptop, therefore
rendering the setup exempt? You could of course avoid any doubt and
make it completely legal by charging the battery up first and then
switching off or disconnecting the charger before watching TV, but I
don't know if it would be legally necessary to do this, and nobody
would be able to check what was powering your laptop anyway.

That's the biggest loophole in the whole system. The licence
inspectors have no legal right to enter your home and you have no
legal obligation to answer their questions or even speak to them. Just
tell them politely to go away and there's nothing they can do.

Rod.

Re: TV Licensing

<se08gp$e21$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25191&group=uk.tech.digital-tv#25191

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: MB...@nospam.net (MB)
Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Subject: Re: TV Licensing
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 08:08:50 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <se08gp$e21$1@dont-email.me>
References: <sdu0g0$3uk$1@dont-email.me>
<pc67ggdm1mui82kph2pn56fhq3bq1u2dpr@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 07:08:09 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="fe2b2be732ee29fb76177493777e53b1";
logging-data="14401"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/72Eq+wo5BPIJGqs4FiH4K"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.12.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:F5BnWS4aOS43Te4q1dMAq1EVcqY=
In-Reply-To: <pc67ggdm1mui82kph2pn56fhq3bq1u2dpr@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: MB - Fri, 30 Jul 2021 07:08 UTC

On 30/07/2021 07:51, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> That's the biggest loophole in the whole system. The licence
> inspectors have no legal right to enter your home and you have no
> legal obligation to answer their questions or even speak to them. Just
> tell them politely to go away and there's nothing they can do.

They could try and get a warrant but I believe the police tend to not to
want to get involved.

Re: TV Licensing

<se0acm$ou0$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25192&group=uk.tech.digital-tv#25192

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bria...@blueyonder.co.uk (Brian Gaff \(Sofa\))
Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Subject: Re: TV Licensing
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 08:40:01 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <se0acm$ou0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <sdu0g0$3uk$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)" <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk>
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 07:40:06 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="9d7e9528087c7953054642d23ed29389";
logging-data="25536"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+5tuZH/rMXunFqKnYPtifg"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:M8yTdRO8qEj4jYMmQ1mfepi2Xlk=
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.1830
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
 by: Brian Gaff \(Sofa\) - Fri, 30 Jul 2021 07:40 UTC

I think its a conflict of interest, I don't really think the latter ads
would in any way affect sports reporting, would they?

A few years ago, Sue Barker was in a Go Compare Ad. Most of these people
are free lance and so they can do as they like from what I can see.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"gareth evans" <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:sdu0g0$3uk$1@dont-email.me...
>I wonder if there is a legal loophole making the
> current TV licence fee illegal, in that it is
> based upon line scanning technology whereas
> today's TV is digital, DVB2, where whole and
> partial pictures are transmitted?
>
> Also, if the Brit misgovernment cannot see
> what is wrong with the BBC TV licence fee, can
> they at least set it by law to a more reasonable
> level such as �75 pa?
>
> Also, if Michel Roux was dropped by the BBC for
> sponsoring Albert Bartlett potatoes, how come
> Gary Lineker remains as so great a parasite
> on the licence fee following his stint as
> an advertiser of Walker's Crisps?

Re: TV Licensing

<se0aho$pqm$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25193&group=uk.tech.digital-tv#25193

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bria...@blueyonder.co.uk (Brian Gaff \(Sofa\))
Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Subject: Re: TV Licensing
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 08:42:42 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <se0aho$pqm$1@dont-email.me>
References: <sdu0g0$3uk$1@dont-email.me> <sduhj5$vik$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)" <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk>
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 07:42:48 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="9d7e9528087c7953054642d23ed29389";
logging-data="26454"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19gNHMXTi76M+pQvKfzrv0L"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eI7YqEjhie1JVtRYPo1Zuw6LA2k=
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.1830
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
 by: Brian Gaff \(Sofa\) - Fri, 30 Jul 2021 07:42 UTC

Who has a black and white tv these days?
As far as I know no sound only tv boxes are in current production, so us
blindies always pay half price.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Roger Wilmut" <email@domain.com> wrote in message
news:sduhj5$vik$1@dont-email.me...
> On 2021-07-29 10:38:51 +0000, gareth evans said:
>
>> I wonder if there is a legal loophole making the
>> current TV licence fee illegal, in that it is
>> based upon line scanning technology whereas
>> today's TV is digital, DVB2, where whole and
>> partial pictures are transmitted?
>
> 'Based on line scanning technology': no it isn't. I quote:
>
> "This licence lets you use and install TV receiving equipment at the
> licensed place. You are covered to:
> a) watch and record programmes as they're being shown on TV or live on an
> online TV service, including programmes streamed over the internet and
> satellite programmes from outside the UK, and
> b) watch or download BBC programmes on demand, including catch up TV, on
> BBC iPlayer.
> This can be on any device, including TVs, desktop computers, laptops,
> mobile phones, tablets, games consoles, digital boxes, DVD, Blu-ray and
> VHS recorders, or anything else."
> and
> "Even if you have a black and white TV, you need a colour licence to
> record programmes. This is because DVD, VHS and digital box recorders
> record in colour. A black and white licence is only valid if you use a
> digital box that can't record TV programmes."
>
> The Oxford Dictionary defenition of television:
>
> "A system for converting visual images (with sound) into electrical
> signals, transmitting them by radio or other means, and displaying them
> electronically on a screen."
>

Re: TV Licensing

<fkd7gg1rmun36k2t52r88irq0q4cvego86@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25194&group=uk.tech.digital-tv#25194

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: reply_to...@invalid.invalid (BrightsideS9)
Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Subject: Re: TV Licensing
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 09:23:59 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <fkd7gg1rmun36k2t52r88irq0q4cvego86@4ax.com>
References: <sdu0g0$3uk$1@dont-email.me> <pc67ggdm1mui82kph2pn56fhq3bq1u2dpr@4ax.com> <se08gp$e21$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: brightside@sonnenkinder.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d4a8f0fe78f64e8825c8d4c0c59895a5";
logging-data="5440"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19dO+oTvBiL1g+IStlw6njJ"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SPO6CboDev35HzGSwGE/vrIWIKw=
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
 by: BrightsideS9 - Fri, 30 Jul 2021 08:23 UTC

On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 08:08:50 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 30/07/2021 07:51, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> That's the biggest loophole in the whole system. The licence
>> inspectors have no legal right to enter your home and you have no
>> legal obligation to answer their questions or even speak to them. Just
>> tell them politely to go away and there's nothing they can do.
>
>They could try and get a warrant but I believe the police tend to not to
>want to get involved.

Police not involved. Warrant issued by magistrate to TV licensing, who
send thier heavies to your door. Police only involved if a breach of
the peace does / may happen.

--
brightside S9.

Re: TV Licensing

<imhs9bF26v2U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25195&group=uk.tech.digital-tv#25195

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: hex...@unseen.ac.am (Norman Wells)
Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Subject: Re: TV Licensing
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 09:41:17 +0100
Lines: 88
Message-ID: <imhs9bF26v2U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <sdu0g0$3uk$1@dont-email.me>
<pc67ggdm1mui82kph2pn56fhq3bq1u2dpr@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net gmVEen6nPKaj3zGsFT61nQcM0pGH1zpBgQ2sewN5DHIuL2mp3w
Cancel-Lock: sha1:llRmz595JUUwv2QWmFcIhBNO5Bc=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.12.0
In-Reply-To: <pc67ggdm1mui82kph2pn56fhq3bq1u2dpr@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: Norman Wells - Fri, 30 Jul 2021 08:41 UTC

On 30/07/2021 07:51, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 11:38:51 +0100, gareth evans
> <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I wonder if there is a legal loophole making the
>> current TV licence fee illegal, in that it is
>> based upon line scanning technology whereas
>> today's TV is digital, DVB2, where whole and
>> partial pictures are transmitted?
>>
>> Also, if the Brit misgovernment cannot see
>> what is wrong with the BBC TV licence fee, can
>> they at least set it by law to a more reasonable
>> level such as £75 pa?
>>
>> Also, if Michel Roux was dropped by the BBC for
>> sponsoring Albert Bartlett potatoes, how come
>> Gary Lineker remains as so great a parasite
>> on the licence fee following his stint as
>> an advertiser of Walker's Crisps?
>
> The legal need to buy a licence is based on what you watch or record,

Actually, in the arcane language of the Act it's to install or watch
television receiving apparatus

> not on the technology you use to do it, though oddly it is sometimes
> based on the power source for said technology. If you use a portable
> device away from home and already have a licence for your home, then
> you don't need another licence for the portable device *as long as it
> is powered by its own internal battery*.
>
> I'm not sure of the legal position of a laptop that is connected to
> its charger, but there seems no reason to expect it to make sense
> (because not much else does). Would the charger be regarded as
> powering the laptop, and therefore count as an external power supply
> so requiring a licence, or would it be seen as charging the battery
> while the internal battery was actually powering the laptop, therefore
> rendering the setup exempt?

The latter of course. If you take the battery out and it stops working,
there's your proof.

So, if you have a licence at home, there's no problem using a laptop
away from home. The original exemption was for people who, say, owned a
caravan or went somewhere else and took a portable television with them.
Using a laptop is essentially no different to that.

> You could of course avoid any doubt and
> make it completely legal by charging the battery up first and then
> switching off or disconnecting the charger before watching TV, but I
> don't know if it would be legally necessary to do this, and nobody
> would be able to check what was powering your laptop anyway.

There's no need. If you're licensed at home, you're licensed to use a
laptop away.

If you're not, you need a licence covering wherever you are.

> That's the biggest loophole in the whole system. The licence
> inspectors have no legal right to enter your home and you have no
> legal obligation to answer their questions or even speak to them. Just
> tell them politely to go away and there's nothing they can do.

Except look through the windows, listen at the door, send you
threatening letters and perpetuate the myth of remote monitoring.

Of course you can take the view that it's OK to break the law because
you won't be caught, and act accordingly, but the fact is that few are
so morally bankrupt that they do so.

According to:

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8101/

"Estimated TV licence evasion rate rose from 5.20% in 2010/11 to 7.25%
in 2019/20"

meaning a compliance rate, even now, of 92.75%.

And, according to this from 2017:

https://vodzilla.co/blog/vod-news/you-will-need-a-tv-licence-to-watch-iplayer-on-september/

"More than 33,000 young people between the ages of 18 and 25 were caught
watching live TV or BBC programmes on iPlayer without a TV Licence in
the past year."

Re: TV Licensing

<se0ecp$eot$2@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25196&group=uk.tech.digital-tv#25196

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: MB...@nospam.net (MB)
Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Subject: Re: TV Licensing
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 09:49:05 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <se0ecp$eot$2@dont-email.me>
References: <sdu0g0$3uk$1@dont-email.me>
<pc67ggdm1mui82kph2pn56fhq3bq1u2dpr@4ax.com> <se08gp$e21$1@dont-email.me>
<fkd7gg1rmun36k2t52r88irq0q4cvego86@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 08:48:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="fe2b2be732ee29fb76177493777e53b1";
logging-data="15133"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/xWv31Rsv0ZvXeuE2RpSyI"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.12.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mu2aIJSWjiZJkFtAJXpkAtIX6Qs=
In-Reply-To: <fkd7gg1rmun36k2t52r88irq0q4cvego86@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: MB - Fri, 30 Jul 2021 08:49 UTC

On 30/07/2021 09:23, BrightsideS9 wrote:
> Police not involved. Warrant issued by magistrate to TV licensing, who
> send thier heavies to your door. Police only involved if a breach of
> the peace does / may happen.

In the past people like TV Licensing would ask for police attendance
when having to do things like that but nowadays they will almost certain
refuse or want paying.

Are there still "breaches of the peace" now, I thought everything was a
"public order offence"?

Re: TV Licensing

<p9m7gghp16q7gv33u7576tob3to78j0rpi@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25209&group=uk.tech.digital-tv#25209

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed9.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc3.netnews.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!fx10.ams1.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: rjf...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk (Roderick Stewart)
Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Subject: Re: TV Licensing
Message-ID: <p9m7gghp16q7gv33u7576tob3to78j0rpi@4ax.com>
References: <sdu0g0$3uk$1@dont-email.me> <pc67ggdm1mui82kph2pn56fhq3bq1u2dpr@4ax.com> <imhs9bF26v2U1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 37
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 12:07:09 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 2513
 by: Roderick Stewart - Fri, 30 Jul 2021 11:07 UTC

On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 09:41:17 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>> I'm not sure of the legal position of a laptop that is connected to
>> its charger, but there seems no reason to expect it to make sense
>> (because not much else does). Would the charger be regarded as
>> powering the laptop, and therefore count as an external power supply
>> so requiring a licence, or would it be seen as charging the battery
>> while the internal battery was actually powering the laptop, therefore
>> rendering the setup exempt?
>
>The latter of course. If you take the battery out and it stops working,
>there's your proof.

Perhaps you meant to say that if you disconnected the *charger* and it
continued working, that would indicate that it was being powered by
the battery?

But supposing the battery was aging and could only hold a few minutes
of charge? A quick test of unplugging the charger would show that the
laptop was capable of running from its internal battery (and was
therefore covered by your home TV licence according to the rule) but
if the amount of running time this granted was less than the running
time of the programme you wanted to watch, would it still count? You'd
have to plug the charger back in for this, at which point you could
argue it would be topping up the battery and the battery would be what
was actually powering the laptop.

I suppose you could say the laptop was running from "delayed mains
power", as in a sense it normally does from a previously charged
battery when running on battery power alone, except that in this case
the delay time would be less than the duration of the programme. I
wonder how the rule would be applied here?

I did say we needn't expect it to make sense.

Rod.

Re: TV Licensing

<imidd2F5l89U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25216&group=uk.tech.digital-tv#25216

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: hex...@unseen.ac.am (Norman Wells)
Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Subject: Re: TV Licensing
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 14:33:25 +0100
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <imidd2F5l89U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <sdu0g0$3uk$1@dont-email.me>
<pc67ggdm1mui82kph2pn56fhq3bq1u2dpr@4ax.com>
<imhs9bF26v2U1@mid.individual.net>
<p9m7gghp16q7gv33u7576tob3to78j0rpi@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net cUPe225P5/WGUXZ5PhCR0Qpk59oPfqtg66Heu7roBsLpXfgDbk
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9CTDIehQ63ihJJ+I5huTiP5Z18g=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.12.0
In-Reply-To: <p9m7gghp16q7gv33u7576tob3to78j0rpi@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: Norman Wells - Fri, 30 Jul 2021 13:33 UTC

On 30/07/2021 12:07, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 09:41:17 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>>> I'm not sure of the legal position of a laptop that is connected to
>>> its charger, but there seems no reason to expect it to make sense
>>> (because not much else does). Would the charger be regarded as
>>> powering the laptop, and therefore count as an external power supply
>>> so requiring a licence, or would it be seen as charging the battery
>>> while the internal battery was actually powering the laptop, therefore
>>> rendering the setup exempt?
>>
>> The latter of course. If you take the battery out and it stops working,
>> there's your proof.
>
> Perhaps you meant to say that if you disconnected the *charger* and it
> continued working, that would indicate that it was being powered by
> the battery?

Either way. 'Tis the same thing.

> But supposing the battery was aging and could only hold a few minutes
> of charge? A quick test of unplugging the charger would show that the
> laptop was capable of running from its internal battery (and was
> therefore covered by your home TV licence according to the rule) but
> if the amount of running time this granted was less than the running
> time of the programme you wanted to watch, would it still count? You'd
> have to plug the charger back in for this, at which point you could
> argue it would be topping up the battery and the battery would be what
> was actually powering the laptop.
>
> I suppose you could say the laptop was running from "delayed mains
> power", as in a sense it normally does from a previously charged
> battery when running on battery power alone, except that in this case
> the delay time would be less than the duration of the programme. I
> wonder how the rule would be applied here?
>
> I did say we needn't expect it to make sense.

Having to invent more and more particularised circumstances in fact
indicates that it's pretty clear and sensible.

Re: TV Licensing

<imiebgF5ns9U2@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25219&group=uk.tech.digital-tv#25219

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!4.us.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: jennings...@fastmail.fm (JNugent)
Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Subject: Re: TV Licensing
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 14:49:36 +0100
Organization: Home User
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <imiebgF5ns9U2@mid.individual.net>
References: <sdu0g0$3uk$1@dont-email.me>
<pc67ggdm1mui82kph2pn56fhq3bq1u2dpr@4ax.com>
Reply-To: jennings&co@fastmail.fm
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net 0d/+kiZoajoMCdtjZQgn4Qio72H3BLT5B2buCgioKR+CPasTmq
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1eoFM7uBvKEVodTK21DRVaDd0G0=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/60.6.1
In-Reply-To: <pc67ggdm1mui82kph2pn56fhq3bq1u2dpr@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 210730-0, 7/30/2021), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
 by: JNugent - Fri, 30 Jul 2021 13:49 UTC

On 30/07/2021 07:51 am, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 11:38:51 +0100, gareth evans
> <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I wonder if there is a legal loophole making the
>> current TV licence fee illegal, in that it is
>> based upon line scanning technology whereas
>> today's TV is digital, DVB2, where whole and
>> partial pictures are transmitted?
>>
>> Also, if the Brit misgovernment cannot see
>> what is wrong with the BBC TV licence fee, can
>> they at least set it by law to a more reasonable
>> level such as £75 pa?
>>
>> Also, if Michel Roux was dropped by the BBC for
>> sponsoring Albert Bartlett potatoes, how come
>> Gary Lineker remains as so great a parasite
>> on the licence fee following his stint as
>> an advertiser of Walker's Crisps?
>
> The legal need to buy a licence is based on what you watch or record,
> not on the technology you use to do it, though oddly it is sometimes
> based on the power source for said technology. If you use a portable
> device away from home and already have a licence for your home, then
> you don't need another licence for the portable device *as long as it
> is powered by its own internal battery*.

Oi! BBC! Good luck trying to enforce that one!
>
> I'm not sure of the legal position of a laptop that is connected to
> its charger, but there seems no reason to expect it to make sense
> (because not much else does). Would the charger be regarded as
> powering the laptop, and therefore count as an external power supply
> so requiring a licence, or would it be seen as charging the battery
> while the internal battery was actually powering the laptop, therefore
> rendering the setup exempt? You could of course avoid any doubt and
> make it completely legal by charging the battery up first and then
> switching off or disconnecting the charger before watching TV, but I
> don't know if it would be legally necessary to do this, and nobody
> would be able to check what was powering your laptop anyway.
>
> That's the biggest loophole in the whole system. The licence
> inspectors have no legal right to enter your home and you have no
> legal obligation to answer their questions or even speak to them. Just
> tell them politely to go away and there's nothing they can do.
>
> Rod.
>

Re: TV Licensing

<imieheF5ns9U3@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25220&group=uk.tech.digital-tv#25220

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!4.us.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: jennings...@fastmail.fm (JNugent)
Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Subject: Re: TV Licensing
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 14:52:46 +0100
Organization: Home User
Lines: 94
Message-ID: <imieheF5ns9U3@mid.individual.net>
References: <sdu0g0$3uk$1@dont-email.me>
<pc67ggdm1mui82kph2pn56fhq3bq1u2dpr@4ax.com>
<imhs9bF26v2U1@mid.individual.net>
Reply-To: jennings&co@fastmail.fm
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net 9cNQ5AsF39H9kqDtXDGVYgZTBgPAWMjmBdWqB9hAvpkqC1yckM
Cancel-Lock: sha1:g8/mvo/3KoR6nQ7C4pnjgTHU5cY=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/60.6.1
In-Reply-To: <imhs9bF26v2U1@mid.individual.net>
Content-Language: en-GB
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 210730-0, 7/30/2021), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
 by: JNugent - Fri, 30 Jul 2021 13:52 UTC

On 30/07/2021 09:41 am, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 30/07/2021 07:51, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 11:38:51 +0100, gareth evans
>> <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder if there is a legal loophole making the
>>> current TV licence fee illegal, in that it is
>>> based upon line scanning technology whereas
>>> today's TV is digital, DVB2, where whole and
>>> partial pictures are transmitted?
>>>
>>> Also, if the Brit misgovernment cannot see
>>> what is wrong with the BBC TV licence fee, can
>>> they at least set it by law to a more reasonable
>>> level such as £75 pa?
>>>
>>> Also, if Michel Roux was dropped by the BBC for
>>> sponsoring Albert Bartlett potatoes, how come
>>> Gary Lineker remains as so great a parasite
>>> on the licence fee following his stint as
>>> an advertiser of Walker's Crisps?
>>
>> The legal need to buy a licence is based on what you watch or record,
>
> Actually, in the arcane language of the Act it's to install or watch
> television receiving apparatus
>
>> not on the technology you use to do it, though oddly it is sometimes
>> based on the power source for said technology. If you use a portable
>> device away from home and already have a licence for your home, then
>> you don't need another licence for the portable device *as long as it
>> is powered by its own internal battery*.
>>
>> I'm not sure of the legal position of a laptop that is connected to
>> its charger, but there seems no reason to expect it to make sense
>> (because not much else does). Would the charger be regarded as
>> powering the laptop, and therefore count as an external power supply
>> so requiring a licence, or would it be seen as charging the battery
>> while the internal battery was actually powering the laptop, therefore
>> rendering the setup exempt?
>
> The latter of course.  If you take the battery out and it stops working,
> there's your proof.
>
> So, if you have a licence at home, there's no problem using a laptop
> away from home.  The original exemption was for people who, say, owned a
> caravan or went somewhere else and took a portable television with them.
>  Using a laptop is essentially no different to that.
>
>> You could of course avoid any doubt and
>> make it completely legal by charging the battery up first and then
>> switching off or disconnecting the charger before watching TV, but I
>> don't know if it would be legally necessary to do this, and nobody
>> would be able to check what was powering your laptop anyway.
>
> There's no need.  If you're licensed at home, you're licensed to use a
> laptop away.
>
> If you're not, you need a licence covering wherever you are.
>
>> That's the biggest loophole in the whole system. The licence
>> inspectors have no legal right to enter your home and you have no
>> legal obligation to answer their questions or even speak to them. Just
>> tell them politely to go away and there's nothing they can do.
>
> Except look through the windows, listen at the door, send you
> threatening letters and perpetuate the myth of remote monitoring.
>
> Of course you can take the view that it's OK to break the law because
> you won't be caught, and act accordingly, but the fact is that few are
> so morally bankrupt that they do so.
>
> According to:
>
> https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8101/
>
> "Estimated TV licence evasion rate rose from 5.20% in 2010/11 to 7.25%
> in 2019/20"
>
> meaning a compliance rate, even now, of 92.75%.
>
> And, according to this from 2017:
>
> https://vodzilla.co/blog/vod-news/you-will-need-a-tv-licence-to-watch-iplayer-on-september/
>
>
> "More than 33,000 young people between the ages of 18 and 25 were caught
> watching live TV or BBC programmes on iPlayer without a TV Licence in
> the past year."

I've never forgotten the long queue of parents at the nearest Post
Office, all with their £125 (or whatever amount) in their hands, waiting
to buy a TV licence for the room of offspring newly arrived at that
particular university.

Re: TV Licensing

<pmc8gg1cpnq5esomgkgndcvopk2oiekbcg@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25237&group=uk.tech.digital-tv#25237

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc3.netnews.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!fx14.ams1.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: rjf...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk (Roderick Stewart)
Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Subject: Re: TV Licensing
Message-ID: <pmc8gg1cpnq5esomgkgndcvopk2oiekbcg@4ax.com>
References: <sdu0g0$3uk$1@dont-email.me> <pc67ggdm1mui82kph2pn56fhq3bq1u2dpr@4ax.com> <imhs9bF26v2U1@mid.individual.net> <p9m7gghp16q7gv33u7576tob3to78j0rpi@4ax.com> <imidd2F5l89U1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 62
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 18:25:14 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 3909
 by: Roderick Stewart - Fri, 30 Jul 2021 17:25 UTC

On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 14:33:25 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>On 30/07/2021 12:07, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 09:41:17 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm not sure of the legal position of a laptop that is connected to
>>>> its charger, but there seems no reason to expect it to make sense
>>>> (because not much else does). Would the charger be regarded as
>>>> powering the laptop, and therefore count as an external power supply
>>>> so requiring a licence, or would it be seen as charging the battery
>>>> while the internal battery was actually powering the laptop, therefore
>>>> rendering the setup exempt?
>>>
>>> The latter of course. If you take the battery out and it stops working,
>>> there's your proof.
>>
>> Perhaps you meant to say that if you disconnected the *charger* and it
>> continued working, that would indicate that it was being powered by
>> the battery?
>
>Either way. 'Tis the same thing.
>
>> But supposing the battery was aging and could only hold a few minutes
>> of charge? A quick test of unplugging the charger would show that the
>> laptop was capable of running from its internal battery (and was
>> therefore covered by your home TV licence according to the rule) but
>> if the amount of running time this granted was less than the running
>> time of the programme you wanted to watch, would it still count? You'd
>> have to plug the charger back in for this, at which point you could
>> argue it would be topping up the battery and the battery would be what
>> was actually powering the laptop.
>>
>> I suppose you could say the laptop was running from "delayed mains
>> power", as in a sense it normally does from a previously charged
>> battery when running on battery power alone, except that in this case
>> the delay time would be less than the duration of the programme. I
>> wonder how the rule would be applied here?
>>
>> I did say we needn't expect it to make sense.
>
>Having to invent more and more particularised circumstances in fact
>indicates that it's pretty clear and sensible.

A laptop running from an external charger/PSU isn't a very special
circumstance. I would think it was quite a common one. Also, it's not
particularly inusual for the battery in a laptop to have lost capacity
to such an extent that it can only power the laptop for a few minutes,
so the user has it externally powered all the time, effectively using
it like a mains powered computer with a UPS. I'm not inventing this
situation; I've seen it many times.

It seems an absurdity to me that the obligation to buy a viewing
licence should ever depend on the power source for the equipment,
rather than what you are viewing, because it is the material you are
viewing that the licence is supposed to pay for, but sometimes it
does. If that can be regarded as making sense, then it is no less
sensible to wonder about the capacity of the battery if there can be
circumstances where it is present but not providing the power.

Rod.

Re: TV Licensing

<dkd8ggpqu8creb2mf8qjf51166qucnpsf0@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25238&group=uk.tech.digital-tv#25238

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!fx14.ams1.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: rjf...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk (Roderick Stewart)
Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Subject: Re: TV Licensing
Message-ID: <dkd8ggpqu8creb2mf8qjf51166qucnpsf0@4ax.com>
References: <sdu0g0$3uk$1@dont-email.me> <pc67ggdm1mui82kph2pn56fhq3bq1u2dpr@4ax.com> <imiebgF5ns9U2@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 16
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 18:29:29 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 1429
 by: Roderick Stewart - Fri, 30 Jul 2021 17:29 UTC

On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 14:49:36 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

>> The legal need to buy a licence is based on what you watch or record,
>> not on the technology you use to do it, though oddly it is sometimes
>> based on the power source for said technology. If you use a portable
>> device away from home and already have a licence for your home, then
>> you don't need another licence for the portable device *as long as it
>> is powered by its own internal battery*.
>
>Oi! BBC! Good luck trying to enforce that one!

The whole scheme is unenforceable anyway, considering it depends on
evidence that their inspectors don't have any means to collect.

Rod.

Re: TV Licensing

<imis57F8lcdU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25240&group=uk.tech.digital-tv#25240

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: hex...@unseen.ac.am (Norman Wells)
Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Subject: Re: TV Licensing
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 18:45:11 +0100
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <imis57F8lcdU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <sdu0g0$3uk$1@dont-email.me>
<pc67ggdm1mui82kph2pn56fhq3bq1u2dpr@4ax.com>
<imiebgF5ns9U2@mid.individual.net>
<dkd8ggpqu8creb2mf8qjf51166qucnpsf0@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net YhO6mGd44TwmZCct1fYM/Q5ZR3ihnHfK01bva2XUcpybGQT2rs
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jhwaXPplaHqGiRX2HsQcuezjzvg=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.12.0
In-Reply-To: <dkd8ggpqu8creb2mf8qjf51166qucnpsf0@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: Norman Wells - Fri, 30 Jul 2021 17:45 UTC

On 30/07/2021 18:29, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 14:49:36 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
>>> The legal need to buy a licence is based on what you watch or record,
>>> not on the technology you use to do it, though oddly it is sometimes
>>> based on the power source for said technology. If you use a portable
>>> device away from home and already have a licence for your home, then
>>> you don't need another licence for the portable device *as long as it
>>> is powered by its own internal battery*.
>>
>> Oi! BBC! Good luck trying to enforce that one!
>
> The whole scheme is unenforceable anyway, considering it depends on
> evidence that their inspectors don't have any means to collect.
>

If you find a wallet on a bus or train, I think most people's moral
compass would direct them to hand it in not take it for themselves even
though there's virtually no chance of being discovered.

The same morality, I suspect, applies to the TV licence.

Re: TV Licensing

<imjhjnFcpmcU2@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25246&group=uk.tech.digital-tv#25246

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: jennings...@fastmail.fm (JNugent)
Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Subject: Re: TV Licensing
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2021 00:51:19 +0100
Organization: Home User
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <imjhjnFcpmcU2@mid.individual.net>
References: <sdu0g0$3uk$1@dont-email.me>
<pc67ggdm1mui82kph2pn56fhq3bq1u2dpr@4ax.com>
<imiebgF5ns9U2@mid.individual.net>
<dkd8ggpqu8creb2mf8qjf51166qucnpsf0@4ax.com>
<imis57F8lcdU1@mid.individual.net>
Reply-To: jennings&co@fastmail.fm
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net H+u6axG6DtIEv88qmJkWAQEhnxty9UhSqRanFUlw06UhlZglH4
Cancel-Lock: sha1:E5h3qUYvfF1HDj26eVVB+y5PhvQ=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/60.6.1
In-Reply-To: <imis57F8lcdU1@mid.individual.net>
Content-Language: en-GB
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 210730-8, 7/30/2021), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
 by: JNugent - Fri, 30 Jul 2021 23:51 UTC

On 30/07/2021 06:45 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 30/07/2021 18:29, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 14:49:36 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> The legal need to buy a licence is based on what you watch or record,
>>>> not on the technology you use to do it, though oddly it is sometimes
>>>> based on the power source for said technology. If you use a portable
>>>> device away from home and already have a licence for your home, then
>>>> you don't need another licence for the portable device *as long as it
>>>> is powered by its own internal battery*.
>>>
>>> Oi! BBC! Good luck trying to enforce that one!
>>
>> The whole scheme is unenforceable anyway, considering it depends on
>> evidence that their inspectors don't have any means to collect.
>>
>
> If you find a wallet on a bus or train, I think most people's moral
> compass would direct them to hand it in not take it for themselves even
> though there's virtually no chance of being discovered.
>
> The same morality, I suspect, applies to the TV licence.

But surely not many people are going to buy two licences for one
household, irrespective of the Beeb's orders to do so?

OK, we had to when we had offspring at university, but that neatly
self-classifies as multiple households.

Re: TV Licensing

<imjpmqFebbgU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25248&group=uk.tech.digital-tv#25248

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: wrightsa...@f2s.com (williamwright)
Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Subject: Re: TV Licensing
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2021 03:09:30 +0100
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <imjpmqFebbgU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <sdu0g0$3uk$1@dont-email.me>
<pc67ggdm1mui82kph2pn56fhq3bq1u2dpr@4ax.com>
<imiebgF5ns9U2@mid.individual.net>
<dkd8ggpqu8creb2mf8qjf51166qucnpsf0@4ax.com>
<imis57F8lcdU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net RMcBlVV/COopYwjeATo/XApXwhVgs51aoe2uHZisqHL/Mp3gFA
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mRqr3AS+mKH45kl3Ml1r4ZrcFrc=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.12.0
In-Reply-To: <imis57F8lcdU1@mid.individual.net>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: williamwright - Sat, 31 Jul 2021 02:09 UTC

On 30/07/2021 18:45, Norman Wells wrote:

>
> If you find a wallet on a bus or train, I think most people's moral
> compass would direct them to hand it in not take it for themselves

Not round these parts

Bill

Re: TV Licensing

<imkd2iFi2ccU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25250&group=uk.tech.digital-tv#25250

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news-2.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: hex...@unseen.ac.am (Norman Wells)
Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Subject: Re: TV Licensing
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2021 08:40:01 +0100
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <imkd2iFi2ccU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <sdu0g0$3uk$1@dont-email.me>
<pc67ggdm1mui82kph2pn56fhq3bq1u2dpr@4ax.com>
<imiebgF5ns9U2@mid.individual.net>
<dkd8ggpqu8creb2mf8qjf51166qucnpsf0@4ax.com>
<imis57F8lcdU1@mid.individual.net> <imjpmqFebbgU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net jWH/t6C6IDfdxXGjx4xq+gdpepCcJuPUPopuEbpiE8bz4O6o2W
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wiIjNmCIeIyfMfyxgeXNkhKcstk=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.12.0
In-Reply-To: <imjpmqFebbgU1@mid.individual.net>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: Norman Wells - Sat, 31 Jul 2021 07:40 UTC

On 31/07/2021 03:09, williamwright wrote:
> On 30/07/2021 18:45, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> If you find a wallet on a bus or train, I think most people's moral
>> compass would direct them to hand it in not take it for themselves
>
> Not round these parts

Aye, it's grim up north.

Re: TV Licensing

<imkdf5Fi4fgU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25251&group=uk.tech.digital-tv#25251

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: hex...@unseen.ac.am (Norman Wells)
Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Subject: Re: TV Licensing
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2021 08:46:44 +0100
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <imkdf5Fi4fgU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <sdu0g0$3uk$1@dont-email.me>
<pc67ggdm1mui82kph2pn56fhq3bq1u2dpr@4ax.com>
<imiebgF5ns9U2@mid.individual.net>
<dkd8ggpqu8creb2mf8qjf51166qucnpsf0@4ax.com>
<imis57F8lcdU1@mid.individual.net> <imjhjnFcpmcU2@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net 05K3Zkfnig+Z4xGf1xtbHwiQaIUq7yVYeitnpWgHIXPAYSMx/U
Cancel-Lock: sha1:YiZCBZTJPZkSIu5OAh/8kFk+Lhk=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.12.0
In-Reply-To: <imjhjnFcpmcU2@mid.individual.net>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: Norman Wells - Sat, 31 Jul 2021 07:46 UTC

On 31/07/2021 00:51, JNugent wrote:
> On 30/07/2021 06:45 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 30/07/2021 18:29, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 14:49:36 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The legal need to buy a licence is based on what you watch or record,
>>>>> not on the technology you use to do it, though oddly it is sometimes
>>>>> based on the power source for said technology. If you use a portable
>>>>> device away from home and already have a licence for your home, then
>>>>> you don't need another licence for the portable device *as long as it
>>>>> is powered by its own internal battery*.
>>>>
>>>> Oi! BBC! Good luck trying to enforce that one!
>>>
>>> The whole scheme is unenforceable anyway, considering it depends on
>>> evidence that their inspectors don't have any means to collect.
>>>
>>
>> If you find a wallet on a bus or train, I think most people's moral
>> compass would direct them to hand it in not take it for themselves
>> even though there's virtually no chance of being discovered.
>>
>> The same morality, I suspect, applies to the TV licence.
>
> But surely not many people are going to buy two licences for one
> household, irrespective of the Beeb's orders to do so?

Not for one household, if by that you mean 'house', nor is it necessary.
The licence covers the premises.

If you mean one licence should cover all your sisters and your cousins
and your aunts wherever they live, it seems perfectly reasonable that
they should require separate licences.

> OK, we had to when we had offspring at university, but that neatly
> self-classifies as multiple households.

I'm not quite sure who you think requires two licences for what then, or
why it's wrong.

Re: TV Licensing

<se3256$jf2$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25255&group=uk.tech.digital-tv#25255

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: me...@privacy.invalid (NY)
Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Subject: Re: TV Licensing
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2021 09:37:58 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <se3256$jf2$1@dont-email.me>
References: <sdu0g0$3uk$1@dont-email.me> <pc67ggdm1mui82kph2pn56fhq3bq1u2dpr@4ax.com> <imhs9bF26v2U1@mid.individual.net> <p9m7gghp16q7gv33u7576tob3to78j0rpi@4ax.com> <imidd2F5l89U1@mid.individual.net> <pmc8gg1cpnq5esomgkgndcvopk2oiekbcg@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2021 08:37:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="2a96549be26457ecdb5f28ee898ffda6";
logging-data="19938"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19b2Kup4jodkwylbfYM2gXXpL989RqwUNY="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2xS4JZRcm/zaMcFpT7jaTp5lRc8=
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8089.726
In-Reply-To: <pmc8gg1cpnq5esomgkgndcvopk2oiekbcg@4ax.com>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8089.726
Importance: Normal
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 210730-8, 30/7/2021), Outbound message
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
 by: NY - Sat, 31 Jul 2021 08:37 UTC

"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pmc8gg1cpnq5esomgkgndcvopk2oiekbcg@4ax.com...

> It seems an absurdity to me that the obligation to buy a viewing
> licence should ever depend on the power source for the equipment,
> rather than what you are viewing, because it is the material you are
> viewing that the licence is supposed to pay for, but sometimes it
> does. If that can be regarded as making sense, then it is no less
> sensible to wonder about the capacity of the battery if there can be
> circumstances where it is present but not providing the power.

Yes I've never understood the logic for making a distinction between
permanently-installed mains-powered equipment and portable equipment which
can be powered either by mains or by battery - or rather why they make an
exemption only if the portable equipment is being powered by its battery.

I imagine they want to make provision for people who have a TV licence at
home and want to watch TV when they are away from home camping or
caravanning. But the "powered by internal battery" restriction is weird,
because it means you can't power it from the car battery (either as 12 V, or
as 240 V via a mains inverter) - as if it makes a difference one way or the
other.

Re: TV Licensing

<se32k1$m7c$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25256&group=uk.tech.digital-tv#25256

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: me...@privacy.invalid (NY)
Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Subject: Re: TV Licensing
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2021 09:45:52 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <se32k1$m7c$1@dont-email.me>
References: <sdu0g0$3uk$1@dont-email.me> <pc67ggdm1mui82kph2pn56fhq3bq1u2dpr@4ax.com> <imiebgF5ns9U2@mid.individual.net> <dkd8ggpqu8creb2mf8qjf51166qucnpsf0@4ax.com> <imis57F8lcdU1@mid.individual.net> <imjhjnFcpmcU2@mid.individual.net> <imkdf5Fi4fgU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="UTF-8";
reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2021 08:45:53 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="2a96549be26457ecdb5f28ee898ffda6";
logging-data="22764"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19CloAMTuT9xmjT06fK487Ha1KruwF7640="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:p70bntqzyGbiFVqTpivF82BGqa8=
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8089.726
In-Reply-To: <imkdf5Fi4fgU1@mid.individual.net>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8089.726
Importance: Normal
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 210730-8, 30/7/2021), Outbound message
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
 by: NY - Sat, 31 Jul 2021 08:45 UTC

"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:imkdf5Fi4fgU1@mid.individual.net...

> Not for one household, if by that you mean 'house', nor is it necessary.
> The licence covers the premises.
>
>> OK, we had to when we had offspring at university, but that neatly
>> self-classifies as multiple households.
>
> I'm not quite sure who you think requires two licences for what then, or
> why it's wrong.

What is the exact situation in a "house of multiple occupancy" - eg a
student house? Is that covered by a single licence, or does each student
need a separate licence because there is a lock on each student's bedroom
door, turning them into separate households? Or does it depend where the TV
is - in each bedroom (separate licence) or in shared lounge (one licence
that everyone contributes to)?

How are hotels licensed? Do they pay at a reduced "block-booking" rate but
per bedroom?

And the black-and-white rate should really apply to the display technology
rather than the recording technology - a B&W TV with a PVR that has no means
of extracting and sharing recordings with a friend should be charged at B&W
rate because that's how you will be viewing TV - whether live or recorded.
But they say that all recorders must be paid for as colour, even if you can
only view the recordings in B&W.

All a bit of a mess.

Pages:12345
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor