In article ,
"altheim" writes:

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote:
"altheim" writes:
"Stuart Noble" wrote:

What I'm hoping now is that this rotten government don't start taxing
internet supply as they have said they will, because doubtless some
bright spark will then work out that they can hammer you for more
depending on your supply speed or useage. That really would knock the
cost of a VMBB connection firmly on the head ...


As long as it replaces the tv licence fee, I wouldn't complain. Being
charged for garbage I never watch, and hardly ever listen to, does get
up
my nose though.

I heard it is already done. If you watch TV a TV licence is required
irrespective of the means by which which you receive it - including
via the internet. That means you could not (legally) avoid paying for

Yes, if you're downloading it at the same time it is being broadcast
(for either immediate watching or recording).

No, if you're downloading something which isn't currently being
broadcast, e.g. from one of the broadcasters' replay services.

a TV licence merely by getting rid of your TV, arials, dishes set-top
boxes and stuff. If you have broadband and something like Windows
Media Player on your computer, or your mobile, you would still be liable
even if you never actually used it to watch TV.

In theory, only if you use it. E.g. people with VCR's which they
only used for playback rental tapes don't need a licence in theory.
However, if you've ever sat through TV licence cases in magistrates
courts, you'll know that regardless of what the law says, you will
have to prove you haven't been using any broadcast recieving
apparatus if you are found with it. [...]

Exactly my point. It is virtually impossible to prove that you
have never used your equipment to watch TV (you cannot
prove a negative) therefore you cannot win.

Oh, it was easy if you genuinely hadn't, e.g. there was no
way to plug an aerial in.

Clearly the prosecutors would not take their claims to court
if the law was not on their side therefore we can assume
that the law relates to ownership of equipment and not how
it is used.

I would guess about 40% of the not guilty plea cases were found
not guilty. This is probably more than should have been, but the
prosecution were not very competent, and sometimes didn't offer
any evidence at all, particularly if the defendant had a solicitor.
I never saw a case which was caught by detector van.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]