In article ,
"altheim" writes:

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Kráftéé" writes:
You of course know that you are wrong and the law doesn't specify
whether it is in use, it's the ownership of any receiver, not the use
of, which requires a licence.

Go read the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949 to see that you're 100% wrong.
Actually, you only have to read the very first sentence of it.


OK, Here it is:

"No person shall establish or use any station for wireless telegraphy
or instal or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy except under
the authority of a licence in that behalf granted by the Postmaster
General, and any person who establishes or uses any station for
wireless telegraphy or instals or uses any apparatus for wireless
telegraphy except under and in accordance with such a licence
shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."

Except for specifying "in use" __as well__ as "establish" and
"install" how is Mr Kraftee wrong?

You missed the key bit "for wireless telegraphy"

If I install and use a VCR recorder only for playing prerecorded
videos, then it wasn't installed or used for wireless telegraphy,
and thus no licence is required. This is well established law.

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

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:10:54 +0000, tony sayer wrote:

"No person shall establish or use any station for wireless telegraphy
or instal or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy except under
the authority of a licence in that behalf granted by the Postmaster
General,

Thats not too well written after a receiver is equipment for wireless
telegraphy..

It's clear enough but what are the definitions of the words "station" and
phrase "wireless telegraphy"?

IMHO "station" is referring to a "transmitting station" or anything
designed to transmit and "wireless telegraphy" the transfer, without
wires, of "information". On the latter point ISTR that case law has moved
car radar speed detectors out of the scope of the WTA because no
"information" was received by the detector.

suppose a wi-fi point could be construed a wireless telegraph
transmitter)..

They are and they are licenced under a type approval/general licence.

AFAIK there is only one bit of "wireless" equipment that is an offence to
sell or posses and that is in band (Band IV and V) video senders.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article et,
"Dave Liquorice" writes:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:10:54 +0000, tony sayer wrote:

"No person shall establish or use any station for wireless telegraphy
or instal or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy except under
the authority of a licence in that behalf granted by the Postmaster
General,

Thats not too well written after a receiver is equipment for wireless
telegraphy..

It's clear enough but what are the definitions of the words "station" and
phrase "wireless telegraphy"?

IMHO "station" is referring to a "transmitting station" or anything
designed to transmit and "wireless telegraphy" the transfer, without
wires,

That's right. The "any apparatus" covers receivers too.

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

"george (dicegeorge)" wrote in message

| Only liable if you DO USE it! No such thing as "Going equipt" in
| TV watching.
|
|
| I am told by someone who works in TV/internet
| that a tv licence is needed to watch it Live over the internet,
| but its OK to watch old programmes on BBC iplayer without a TV
| licence.
|
| [g]

That's right you're allowed to 'time slip' but not real time
watching...

"altheim" wrote in message

| "Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
| ...
| In article ,
| "Kráftéé" writes:
| You of course know that you are wrong and the law doesn't specify
| whether it is in use, it's the ownership of any receiver, not
| the use of, which requires a licence.
|
| Go read the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949 to see that you're 100%
| wrong. Actually, you only have to read the very first sentence of
| it.
|
|
| OK, Here it is:
|
| "No person shall establish or use any station for wireless
| telegraphy or instal or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy
| except under the authority of a licence in that behalf granted by
| the Postmaster General, and any person who establishes or uses any
| station for wireless telegraphy or instals or uses any apparatus
| for wireless telegraphy except under and in accordance with such a
| licence
| shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."
|
| Except for specifying "in use" __as well__ as "establish" and
| "install" how is Mr Kraftee wrong?
|
| --
| altheim

This is the bun fight & round & around we go.

Altheim he won't admit that the law states that, all he will now do is
regurgitate his perception, his own personal interpretation completely
ignoring the actual black & white.

Been thru it all for some exams several years ago, but not that long
ago & I know it hasn't been amended that much because as sure as eggs
is eggs if you posses one you will use it at some time or other.

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message

| In article ,
| "altheim" writes:
|
| "Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
| ...
| In article ,
| "Kráftéé" writes:
| You of course know that you are wrong and the law doesn't
| specify whether it is in use, it's the ownership of any
| receiver, not the use of, which requires a licence.
|
| Go read the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949 to see that you're
| 100% wrong. Actually, you only have to read the very first
| sentence of it.
|
|
| OK, Here it is:
|
| "No person shall establish or use any station for wireless
| telegraphy or instal or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy
| except under the authority of a licence in that behalf granted by
| the Postmaster General, and any person who establishes or uses
| any station for wireless telegraphy or instals or uses any
| apparatus for wireless telegraphy except under and in accordance
| with such a licence
| shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."
|
| Except for specifying "in use" __as well__ as "establish" and
| "install" how is Mr Kraftee wrong?
|
| You missed the key bit "for wireless telegraphy"
|
| If I install and use a VCR recorder only for playing prerecorded
| videos, then it wasn't installed or used for wireless telegraphy,
| and thus no licence is required. This is well established law.
|
| --
| Andrew Gabriel
| [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Sorry your VCR _recorder_ could land you in deep ****. Now if you had
spent less & bought a video player that is a completely different
kettle of fish.

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message

| "tony sayer" wrote in message
| ...
| In article , Arfa Daily
| scribeth thus
|
| "Kráftéé" wrote in message
| .. .
| "Dave Liquorice" wrote in
| message ll.net
| | On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:56:42 -0000, Arfa Daily wrote:
| |
| | Most 'unlimited' services, including the Virgin "L" and "XL"
| | offerings AFAIK, are subject, in the small print, to a 'fair
| | useage policy' which in my opinion, rather flies in the
| | face of using the word "unlimited"
| |
| | Agreed. I did look about the BT web site to find such small
| | print including the (a?) fair use policy page. There was
| | nothing that I could find that altered the meaning of the
| | word "unlimited" away from "without limit".
|
| Well I hammer mine on occasions & the only problem I get is
| from the slow servers where I'm getting the data from (20 - 30
| GB over a 2-3 day period has not been unheard of a few times).
|
| I could say P2P 24 hours day but the network I use had died a
| slow death only 3 world wide servers on the network where there
| used to be 50 or more, so I've got to look for pastures new.
| Unfortunately Torrents just don't want to work for me,
| different story sorry..
|
| Let's put it this way in the last year I have never heard of
| anybody being told that they have abused their unlimited
| service. So it's pretty good. The problem is with the
| helpdesk which you need unearthly skills to get them to sort
| out what you want them to, instead of them playing up because
| you've done something like turn the wifi off. They also have
| problems with words like contention but if a firm hand is used
| they can be guided, without to much, if any, swearing.
|
|
|
| Bit of a cop out on that score, but when I have had any problems
| with my Virgin BB, I just call my mate, who works for them on
| field service. He then
| just pops round to sort it for me. Very useful, as he has access
| to technical people who listen to what the problem is, and are
| then able to check stuff for him, right up to switch and trunk
| level, and right down to street cab level. :-)
|
| Arfa
|
|
| Same here .. problem is if he leaves the whole lot it seems will
| grind to a halt, there are precious few people who know what
| there're doing with this sort of equipment!...
| --
| Tony Sayer
|
|
|
| I must admit that I do live in fear of him leaving them. He doesn't
| like his job any more, but he is a couple of years older than me,
| and would stand zero chance of getting employed elsewhere in
| today's economic climate, because of his age, so I figure that
| unless they get rid of him, he's there for the duration. He
| actually knows what he is about, but is a little too conscientious
| about getting customers' problems sorted, often carrying out work
| that he really ought to be calling other departments out to do. He
| has worked in most of those departments over the years, so has
| collected the expertise and equipment to do the remedial work, but
| it tends to put him behind on jobs, which then leaves him working
| late. He is very 'old school' on the customer service and
| satisfaction angle, as am I. I fear we are a dying breed ...

Make that more a unemployed breed. It always happens when stats get
in the way of end user service, some companies even place 'quality
standards' which are impossible to keep 100% if the stat is to be met
so the customer service engineer who tries to satisfy the end users &
keep to the quality standards fall even further behind. The funny
thing is, when the crap hits the wall who are the employees they call
to help them out....That's right the very ones who they're threatening
with poor performance discplinary procedures & anything else they can
dream up to try & force them out the door.

"tony sayer" wrote:
altheim scribeth thus
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote:
"Kráftéé" writes:
You of course know that you are wrong and the law doesn't specify
whether it is in use, it's the ownership of any receiver, not the use
of, which requires a licence.

Go read the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949 to see that you're 100% wrong.
Actually, you only have to read the very first sentence of it.


OK, Here it is:

"No person shall establish or use any station for wireless telegraphy
or instal or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy except under
the authority of a licence in that behalf granted by the Postmaster
General, and any person who establishes or uses any station for
wireless telegraphy or instals or uses any apparatus for wireless
telegraphy except under and in accordance with such a licence
shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."

Except for specifying "in use" __as well__ as "establish" and
"install" how is Mr Kraftee wrong?


Thats not too well written after a receiver is equipment for wireless
telegraphy..

No mention of wireless telephony but telegraphy could mean digital...

Yes, and if you wanted to be really pedantic you could argue
that cable is not wireless. The Act of 1949 has, as you rightly
point out, been updated - 1998 I think - but only to add a few
extra clauses relating to payment, penalties etc. It has not
altered anything in the first paragraph.

suppose a wi-fi point could be construed a wireless telegraph
transmitter)..

The old 1949 act has been updated since..

--
altheim

"Kráftéé" wrote in message
...

Sorry your VCR _recorder_ could land you in deep ****. Now if you had
spent less & bought a video player that is a completely different
kettle of fish.

Peculiarly, it's almost certainly spent more and bought a video player.

"Clive George" wrote in message

| "Kráftéé" wrote in message
| ...
|
| Sorry your VCR _recorder_ could land you in deep ****. Now if
| you had spent less & bought a video player that is a completely
| different kettle of fish.
|
| Peculiarly, it's almost certainly spent more and bought a video
| player.

Not when I last saw them in the shops

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote:
"altheim" writes:
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote:
"Kráftéé" writes:

You of course know that you are wrong and the law doesn't specify
whether it is in use, it's the ownership of any receiver, not the use
of, which requires a licence.

Go read the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949 to see that you're 100% wrong.
Actually, you only have to read the very first sentence of it.

OK, Here it is:

"No person shall establish or use any station for wireless telegraphy
or instal or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy except under
the authority of a licence in that behalf granted by the Postmaster
General, and any person who establishes or uses any station for
wireless telegraphy or instals or uses any apparatus for wireless
telegraphy except under and in accordance with such a licence
shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."

Except for specifying "in use" __as well__ as "establish" and
"install" how is Mr Kraftee wrong?

You missed the key bit "for wireless telegraphy"

If I install and use a VCR recorder only for playing prerecorded
videos, then it wasn't installed or used for wireless telegraphy,
and thus no licence is required. This is well established law.

If you owned a video cassette player - as opposed to a video
cassette recorder - I might agree with you, but if your VCR
is capable of receiving broadcast material then you become
liable. That is clearly stated in the very paragraph which you
referred us to so I fail to see why you think your case is
supported by 'established law'.

--
altheim

"george (dicegeorge)" wrote in message
...


Only liable if you DO USE it! No such thing as "Going equipt" in TV
watching.


I am told by someone who works in TV/internet
that a tv licence is needed to watch it Live over the internet,
but its OK to watch old programmes on BBC iplayer without a TV licence.

You need the licence if it is near live, whatever "near live" means in
court.

[g]

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:19:58 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

You need the licence if it is near live, whatever "near live" means in
court.

I guess that is there because any defence lawyer worth their salt would
immediately point out that with any television there is a delay of some
sort between the precise moment of an event and the moment the same event
appears on the television screen.

In old analogue days this delay would be very short but now with digits,
sybchronisers, multiplexes, multi-hop geosynchronous satellite
distribution etc etc, the delay between an event happening and it
appearing on screen can be many seconds.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article ,
"altheim" writes:

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote:
"altheim" writes:

OK, Here it is:

"No person shall establish or use any station for wireless telegraphy
or instal or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy except under
the authority of a licence in that behalf granted by the Postmaster
General, and any person who establishes or uses any station for
wireless telegraphy or instals or uses any apparatus for wireless
telegraphy except under and in accordance with such a licence
shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."

Except for specifying "in use" __as well__ as "establish" and
"install" how is Mr Kraftee wrong?

You missed the key bit "for wireless telegraphy"

If I install and use a VCR recorder only for playing prerecorded
videos, then it wasn't installed or used for wireless telegraphy,
and thus no licence is required. This is well established law.

If you owned a video cassette player - as opposed to a video
cassette recorder - I might agree with you, but if your VCR
is capable of receiving broadcast material then you become
liable. That is clearly stated in the very paragraph which you
referred us to so I fail to see why you think your case is
supported by 'established law'.

I've sat through around 30 cases in magistrates court, and heard
it stated there many times. A defence solicitor will (where
possible and relevant) show that the apparatus was not "installed
or used for wireless telegraphy", but installed and used for some
other purpose, and thus does not come under the Act.
Try reading the above again -- I can only assume you aren't
reading it carefully enough, as that is exactly what it says.

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

In article , Andrew Gabriel
scribeth thus
In article et,
"Dave Liquorice" writes:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:10:54 +0000, tony sayer wrote:

"No person shall establish or use any station for wireless telegraphy
or instal or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy except under
the authority of a licence in that behalf granted by the Postmaster
General,

Thats not too well written after a receiver is equipment for wireless
telegraphy..

It's clear enough but what are the definitions of the words "station" and
phrase "wireless telegraphy"?

IMHO "station" is referring to a "transmitting station" or anything
designed to transmit and "wireless telegraphy" the transfer, without
wires,



That's right. The "any apparatus" covers receivers too.

So strictly speaking for that bit of "Apparatus" then you need a licence
issued by the Postmaster General..

Shirley he'll be redundant too what with the rise of e-mail;!...
--
Tony Sayer

Make that more a unemployed breed. It always happens when stats get
in the way of end user service, some companies even place 'quality
standards' which are impossible to keep 100% if the stat is to be met
so the customer service engineer who tries to satisfy the end users &
keep to the quality standards fall even further behind. The funny
thing is, when the crap hits the wall who are the employees they call
to help them out....That's right the very ones who they're threatening
with poor performance discplinary procedures & anything else they can
dream up to try & force them out the door.



British mis- "management" at its very best;(...
--
Tony Sayer