The Medway Handyman writes:

On 01/06/2013 02:57, Clive George wrote:
On 01/06/2013 02:31, Wesley wrote:
I witnessed a heated arguement the other day between a lady wishing to
buy
an LCD TV and an Argos employee.

Apparently, Argos are required by law to take the name and address of
anybody purchasing a TV or any TV related peripherals and pass these
on to
the licencing authorities. The lady in question was having none of
this and
contested the issue even after the store manager was called. She claimed
that, on principle, it was wrong that she had to supply her personal
details
and if she wanted to buy a lawnmower, these would not be required.

In the end she stormed out without making a purchase and Argos lost
the sale
of a £500 TV.

I can't help feeling she had a point :-)

Maybe, but Argos were right - they have to do that, like every other TV
seller in this country. She should take it up with her MP if she feels
this is wrong.

I believe the traditional answer for somebody in her situation is to
give a false name/address. I do wonder if she's now gone online and
bought one to be delivered to her home...

I often wondered if those TV detector vans actually worked? Or were
they pure front to scare people?

I'm pretty sure they would work if you lived in an isolated house on
the moors somewhere, but I refuse to believe that they could work in a
a tenement building with dozens or hundreds of flats.

Every steel beam or metal pipe would distort the signals from all the
TV sets.

Of course they might just look through the window!

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

Archibald writes:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 08:32:19 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

Wesley wrote:
I witnessed a heated arguement the other day between a lady wishing to buy
an LCD TV and an Argos employee.

Apparently, Argos are required by law to take the name and address of
anybody purchasing a TV or any TV related peripherals and pass these on to
the licencing authorities. The lady in question was having none of this and
contested the issue even after the store manager was called. She claimed
that, on principle, it was wrong that she had to supply her personal details
and if she wanted to buy a lawnmower, these would not be required.

In the end she stormed out without making a purchase and Argos lost the sale
of a £500 TV.

I can't help feeling she had a point :-)


She might have had a point, but Argos were correct. Any retailer
supplying TV receivers or related equipment, such as a set top box or
video recorder, as in the case that caused me a small amount of grief
with my tenant when Dixons got my address wrong, a USB dongle, must
inform the appropriate authority of the name and address given by the
customer. There are quite severe penalties for not doing so. Unless she
bought a set second hand from a private seller, she would have to supply
her details before taking delivery. Some retailers are less obtrusive
about this than others, but they all have to do it.

The reason is so that The Powers That Be can collect their pound of
flesh for permitting you to receive TV broadcasts. There is no pound of
flesh to be collected for mowing your lawn, so they don't care how many
lawnmowers are sold.

From past experience, the provision of an address is nothing to do
with the warranty. The address given does not have to be accurate or
even a UK address. I have bought a couple of set top boxes at my local
Asda and they are quite happy to accept a Southern Irish address.

The only time I had problems was nominating 10 Downing Street at my
abode. It was then explained to me that Asda could come in for a hefty
fine knowingly taking false information, or not taking the information
in the first place.

You might perhaps have had more luck if you'd said 11 Downing St.,
depending on the intelligence of the employee.

I do have a licence incidentally, although I suspect that if someone
wasn't to keen on having one, things would be fairly easy these days.
As few sets have a line timebase now, then the only thing a detector
would have to go for is the tuners local oscillator, a miniscule
signal in an ocean of polluted airwaves.

Incidentally years back I was in the TV trade. A customer on a large
and not too reputable council estate described how she was visited by
the licencing authourity, she admitted them to the house, showed them
the TV and was as helpful as possible. her neighbour threatened to
"kick the head in" of anyone trying to enter his house.

Only one got fined. Any guesses which one?

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

"ARW" wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
[snip]

Being wrong is not a monopoly industry.

Tell that to dennis.

Snork.


--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Archibald writes:
And I wonder how many people have been prosecuted for watching TV on
broadband?

Lots of students in halls of residence.
They're always easy targets because they instantly admit what they
were doing to the license inspectors, under the misapprehension that
it wasn't illegal.

--
Andrew Gabriel


And indeed, until a few years back, it wasn't, as the license covered
students living away (and possibly other family members as well) as long as
their primary residence was at the address that was licensed.

Arfa

Normally, radio amateurs don't broadcast*. The normal UK amateur radio
licence doesn't cover the reception of broadcast commercial TV signals.
*Exceptions include the transmission of news broadcasts, which require
special authorisation.

There are those who will argue that an amateur, by the terms of his
licence, should be capable of checking for interference problems, and so
should have a working broadcast TV installation.

I would contend that the capability to do anything other than be able to
unpack the transceiver, and hook it up to an antenna and hit the PTT, went
out the window when the licensing requirements changed, and you could get
one either off the back of a cornflake packet, or by attending a scout camp
for a weekend. It's the reason that all my gear is now about a half inch
thick in dust ... :-)

Arfa

RayL12 wrote:

I am more bemused by the overall response in this thread. I would have
expected more like yours. People paying a license for watching, what I
consider as, mostly crap, is disgusting.

There is far more 'entertainment' on the Net. There is much more good
and, free advice. The BBC (actually a curtain) produces nothing that
helps human kind. They simply keep people amused enough so as not to see
what is actually going on.

Please go and put another layer of tinfoil in your hat. I wonder if
you're one of the nutters on the Have Your Say thing that manage to turn
everything into a rant about the licence fee?

Yes, modern TV is particularly crap, but that's entirely due to giving
people what they want, like the US model. More channels, less
advertising revenue per channel, more "how can we make a mass market
programme for 25p?" Result, utter bilge. Yes, there might be more
entertainment to be had on the net but that doesn't matter a fig to
people who just collapse on a sofa and want to be entertained. In fact,
that's almost a positive argument in favour of putting on tossicocks -
you've lost the segment of the audience that can think for itself so why
produce anything intelligent?

I don't watch TV to speak of but from what I see, the BBC is still miles
ahead of the others. Forcibly sitting through half an hour of American
imported drivel with adverts every 15 seconds last night made my teeth
itch in very short order.

Scott

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 20:38:56 +0100, Scott M
wrote:

Arfa Daily wrote:

A while back, I'm sure that I saw something somewhere that basically
said that they just went to a street armed with a list of the houses
that *didn't* have a license, and started knocking on doors, based on
the fact that there was a good liklihood that they would have a TV.

They did used to have handheld detectors that were good for blocks of
flats, apparently, but its been a mostly paper exercise for a long, long
time.

Bought a new house in 1997 and, IIRC, even before we'd moved in there
was a red demand from TVLicensing.

I've known two people without TVs and, over 10 years ago now, it was a
never ending battle with them in charge to persuade them that you don't
have a set. And even if you did manage to persuade them you didn't have
one, they'd be back the next year just as insistent. The problem is, of
course, that traditionally it's almost unthinkable that people might
have better things to do with their time that watch TV, although that
may well be changing with mass adoption of t'interweb.

They want you to watch "Britain's got talent" and "Eastenders" until
your brain turns to cheese. That makes the proles easier to control.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 11:15:21 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
There seemed to be no way to actually shut off the stream of letter for
more than three months at a time though, and they were written in a way
that was both intimidating and also presumed guilt. At which point I
though sod em, and just binned all further communications unopened!

Sounds a bit like Virgin. I get about one letter a week trying to get me
to subscribe to their service.

I used to get letters from them (although not that often) and my area
isn't even cabled.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

In article ,
RayL12 wrote:
I am more bemused by the overall response in this thread. I would have
expected more like yours. People paying a license for watching, what I
consider as, mostly crap, is disgusting.

No one is forced to pay for a licence. Only if they wish to operate a TV
receiver. If they are happy with DVDs etc, no licence required.

There is far more 'entertainment' on the Net. There is much more good
and, free advice. The BBC (actually a curtain) produces nothing that
helps human kind. They simply keep people amused enough so as not to see
what is actually going on.

Then don't bother watching it, and don't pay for a licence. You're not
forced to.

The most likely victim of the licensing law is the poor single mum
with kids. That, of all the transmissions that are freely(in a
fashion)given, cannot be watched because the BBC says IT is the ruler of
the airwaves.

It is the government, not the BBC, that require the licence to be paid.
You don't seem very clewed up.

The BBC has wormed it's way into nearly every form of media receivers
such that you have to pay for 'free information' regardless of it's source.

Eh?

At one time the law included only the actually frequencies broadcast
by the BBC and some people detuned their sets of those frequencies in
order to avoid payment. It was not long before these laws were changed
and, they continue to do so. It will not be long before you HAVE to
register the PC.

That is complete ********. A licence is for the receiving equipment - not
the frequencies. And always has been.

The BBC is nothing but a blanket over our heads. If those behind the
BBC think it deserves the payment then let them show their confidence
and set the broadcasts on a scrambled line. Let people choose to pay.

That might be the way forward in the future. The licence fee dates from
when there was only the one UK broadcaster.

They dare not! They want your money, regardless.

How would you form your views about it without watching it? But I suppose
like so many you want something for nothing?



Stop watching TV, it is, on the whole, useless. The news you get is
hugely filtered such that you only get the doom and gloom. When kept in
stress, your fight and flight system is being energised and your mind
locked into fear and defence.

Have you thought about treatment?

--
*All men are idiots, and I married their King.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , Archibald
writes
On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 10:11:04 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Archibald
writes
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 19:23:14 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article ,
polygonum wrote:
On 01/06/2013 18:48, charles wrote:
A set used exclusively for foreign broadcasts does not need a licence.
Oh, yes, it does.

Even if it didn't - please define "foreign" in that context with
particular reference to satellite broadcasts?

I don't need to. A licence is needed to receive ANY tv broadcasts.

Amateur TV broadcasts only need an amateur licence to both send and
receive, therefore if a domestic licence isn't needed by an amateur
why should a member of the public need one?

Normally, radio amateurs don't broadcast*. The normal UK amateur radio
licence doesn't cover the reception of broadcast commercial TV signals.
*Exceptions include the transmission of news broadcasts, which require
special authorisation.

There are those who will argue that an amateur, by the terms of his
licence, should be capable of checking for interference problems, and so
should have a working broadcast TV installation. I therefore guess, for
this purpose, he doesn't need a broadcast TV licence - provided he
doesn't actually watch the TV for the purpose of enjoyment,
entertainment or education!

Anyone is legally entitled to monitor amateur transmissions in the UK
without a licence incidentally.

This is probably not so. At one time, the old TV/radio licence used to
specify that you could receive broadcast TV/radio transmissions, AND
amateur radio transmissions. It may still be there, buried in the
various rules and regulations. If it isn't, then arguably there is no
licence which authorises you to receive amateur radio/TV transmissions
(other than the amateur radio licence). This used to be the case with CB
transmissions, which (arguably) could only be received if you actually
had a CB licence.

Now if a UK amateur transmission can be legally received without a
licence, why not French, Russian or Southern Irish?

As I've said above, if there is no regulation specifically allowing you
to receive amateur TV signals, then legally, you can't. The WTA is one
of those cases where if you aren't authorised to, you can't.


Interestingly, Ireland had a tv licence nearly 2 years befoe they started
their own tv service.

Things may have been different in the early days. Interference
problems would have been rife [VHF and a video polarity that made the
spots "whiter than white"] I presume their version of the post office
was kept fairly busy.

It may have been the case in the UK too, but when I had my fun with
the licenceing people the post office had left the interference scene
and I seem to recollect there was a charge of £25-00 for an
interference complaint. This along with UHF, AGC and flywheel sync
probably only left them needing to raise money for the services of the
BBC.

Anyway I still would have found it hard to believe if I had not had it
in writing.

Satellites carrying BBC transmissions need a licence BTW.

You need a TV licence for ALL broadcast TV - full stop.

I beg to differ!

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/42/section/181


Broadcast in the legal sense, pays scant regards to the ethereal
disturbance so loved by Mr Lodge.

Oddly enough it seems to suggest that someone watching commercial TV
in Northern Ireland isn't watching a "broadcast"

I don't understand where you draw your conclusions from. Care to
explain?
--
Ian

On 02/06/2013 11:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
There seemed to be no way to actually shut off the stream of letter for
more than three months at a time though, and they were written in a way
that was both intimidating and also presumed guilt. At which point I
though sod em, and just binned all further communications unopened!

Sounds a bit like Virgin. I get about one letter a week trying to get me
to subscribe to their service.

I notice that recently they have been sending these letters in plain
envelopes rather than ones blazoned with their logos. Why they think I
would respond to one of these when I have not already done so heaven
only knows.

They all go straight in the bin.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
RayL12 wrote:




At one time the law included only the actually frequencies broadcast
by the BBC and some people detuned their sets of those frequencies in
order to avoid payment. It was not long before these laws were changed
and, they continue to do so. It will not be long before you HAVE to
register the PC.

That is complete ********.

Quite.

A licence is for the receiving equipment

It might be more correct to say that the TV licence is a licence for
receiving real-time or near-real-time TV broadcasts. The equipment,
frequencies - and, these days, the method of delivery to your home - is
irrelevant.

- not
the frequencies.

And always has been.





--

On 01/06/2013 02:31, Wesley wrote:
I witnessed a heated arguement the other day between a lady wishing to buy
an LCD TV and an Argos employee.

Apparently, Argos are required by law to take the name and address of
anybody purchasing a TV or any TV related peripherals and pass these on to
the licencing authorities. The lady in question was having none of this and
contested the issue even after the store manager was called. She claimed
that, on principle, it was wrong that she had to supply her personal details
and if she wanted to buy a lawnmower, these would not be required.

In the end she stormed out without making a purchase and Argos lost the sale
of a £500 TV.

I can't help feeling she had a point :-)

Every retailer selling TV and recorders is required, by law, to obtain
the buyer's mane and address. She will find this is the same regardless
of where she goes.

--
Peter Crosland

Arfa Daily wrote:
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Archibald writes:
And I wonder how many people have been prosecuted for watching TV on
broadband?

Lots of students in halls of residence.
They're always easy targets because they instantly admit what they
were doing to the license inspectors, under the misapprehension that
it wasn't illegal.

--
Andrew Gabriel


And indeed, until a few years back, it wasn't, as the license covered
students living away (and possibly other family members as well) as
long as their primary residence was at the address that was licensed.


What is a few years back?


It was not the case back in the late 1980s when I was living in halls of
residence.


--
Adam

Arfa Daily wrote:


"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Archibald writes:
And I wonder how many people have been prosecuted for watching TV on
broadband?

Lots of students in halls of residence.
They're always easy targets because they instantly admit what they
were doing to the license inspectors, under the misapprehension that
it wasn't illegal.

And indeed, until a few years back, it wasn't, as the license covered
students living away (and possibly other family members as well) as long
as their primary residence was at the address that was licensed.

With, IIRC, a proviso that the set could not be "installed" by
connecting to mains power and/ or aerial. It was okay to charge it or
its battery from mains power as long as it wasn't turned on while doing so.

You can imagine how well *that* rule was followed....


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:14:01 +0100, John Williamson wrote:

Arfa Daily wrote:


"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Archibald writes:
And I wonder how many people have been prosecuted for watching TV on
broadband?

Lots of students in halls of residence.
They're always easy targets because they instantly admit what they
were doing to the license inspectors, under the misapprehension that
it wasn't illegal.

And indeed, until a few years back, it wasn't, as the license covered
students living away (and possibly other family members as well) as
long as their primary residence was at the address that was licensed.

With, IIRC, a proviso that the set could not be "installed" by
connecting to mains power and/ or aerial. It was okay to charge it or
its battery from mains power as long as it wasn't turned on while doing
so.

You can imagine how well *that* rule was followed....

Why the past tense? That still applies...



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on
Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

Peter Crosland wrote:
On 01/06/2013 02:31, Wesley wrote:
I witnessed a heated arguement the other day between a lady wishing to
buy
an LCD TV and an Argos employee.

Apparently, Argos are required by law to take the name and address of
anybody purchasing a TV or any TV related peripherals and pass these
on to
the licencing authorities. The lady in question was having none of
this and
contested the issue even after the store manager was called. She claimed
that, on principle, it was wrong that she had to supply her personal
details
and if she wanted to buy a lawnmower, these would not be required.

In the end she stormed out without making a purchase and Argos lost
the sale
of a £500 TV.

I can't help feeling she had a point :-)

Every retailer selling TV and recorders is required, by law, to obtain
the buyer's mane and address. She will find this is the same regardless
of where she goes.

Buy one in Australia and ship it to yourself.

On Jun 4, 4:45*am, F Murtz wrote:
Peter Crosland wrote:
On 01/06/2013 02:31, Wesley wrote:
I witnessed a heated arguement the other day between a lady wishing to
buy
an LCD TV and an Argos employee.

Apparently, Argos are required by law to take the name and address of
anybody purchasing a TV or any TV related peripherals and pass these
on to
the licencing authorities. *The lady in question was having none of
this and
contested the issue even after the store manager was called. *She claimed
that, on principle, it was wrong that she had to supply her personal
details
and if she wanted to buy a lawnmower, these would not be required.

In the end she stormed out without making a purchase and Argos lost
the sale
of a 500 TV.

I can't help feeling she had a point *:-)

Every retailer selling TV and recorders is required, by law, to obtain
the buyer's mane and address. She will find this is the same regardless
of where she goes.

Buy one in Australia and ship it to yourself.

Would it work here?

On Monday, June 3, 2013 10:54:43 AM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,

RayL12 wrote:

I am more bemused by the overall response in this thread. I would have

expected more like yours. People paying a license for watching, what I

consider as, mostly crap, is disgusting.



No one is forced to pay for a licence. Only if they wish to operate a TV

receiver. If they are happy with DVDs etc, no licence required.

In nfact you can watch TV programs without a license provided it's not a 'live transmition' i.e you can watch a recorded show, I think that's how the iPlayer works and all those other services which are delayed in their tranmission.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-i...-needed-top12/
You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch ‘catch up’ services like BBC iPlayer or 4oD.



There is far more 'entertainment' on the Net. There is much more good

and, free advice. The BBC (actually a curtain) produces nothing that

helps human kind.

They still produce some good stuff if you like that sort of thing, the new sherlock would be an example for me. Some good documetries on BBC4.



They simply keep people amused enough so as not to see

what is actually going on.



Then don't bother watching it, and don't pay for a licence. You're not

forced to.

You don;t even need a licence for radio now.



The BBC is nothing but a blanket over our heads. If those behind the

BBC think it deserves the payment then let them show their confidence

and set the broadcasts on a scrambled line. Let people choose to pay.



That might be the way forward in the future. The licence fee dates from

when there was only the one UK broadcaster.



They dare not! They want your money, regardless.

Well you don't have to pay the BBC, look on their site there are ways NOT to pay providied you don't want their programs. An eqasier way to pay for the service would be an advantage I've a friend in australia that would love to pay the TV licence so they get some decent TV.

harry wrote:
On Jun 4, 4:45 am, F Murtz wrote:
Peter Crosland wrote:
On 01/06/2013 02:31, Wesley wrote:
I witnessed a heated arguement the other day between a lady wishing to
buy
an LCD TV and an Argos employee.

Apparently, Argos are required by law to take the name and address of
anybody purchasing a TV or any TV related peripherals and pass these
on to
the licencing authorities. The lady in question was having none of
this and
contested the issue even after the store manager was called. She claimed
that, on principle, it was wrong that she had to supply her personal
details
and if she wanted to buy a lawnmower, these would not be required.

In the end she stormed out without making a purchase and Argos lost
the sale
of a 500 TV.

I can't help feeling she had a point :-)

Every retailer selling TV and recorders is required, by law, to obtain
the buyer's mane and address. She will find this is the same regardless
of where she goes.

Buy one in Australia and ship it to yourself.

Would it work here?

We have PAL digital.

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:11:42 +0100, Peter Crosland
wrote:

Every retailer selling TV and recorders is required, by law, to obtain
the buyer's mane and address.

Simba?

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2013-06-05, F Murtz wrote:

We have PAL digital.

No such thing.


--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 10th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3179
"Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine"


Quite ...

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:


"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2013-06-05, F Murtz wrote:

We have PAL digital.

No such thing.


--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 10th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3179
"Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine"


Quite ...

Arfa
Sort of, we still have some analogue, but they are shutting it down.

in 1232807 20130606 001702 Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:11:42 +0100, Peter Crosland
wrote:

Every retailer selling TV and recorders is required, by law, to obtain
the buyer's mane and address.

Simba?

I bought a freeview box at Argos on Tuesday and had to enter name and address
on the machine I used to pay.

"F Murtz" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:


"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2013-06-05, F Murtz wrote:

We have PAL digital.

No such thing.


--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 10th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3179
"Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine"


Quite ...

Arfa
Sort of, we still have some analogue, but they are shutting it down.


The analogue is PAL encoded. The digital has no need to be, and isn't. Hence
the comment of "no such thing" that was made, and that I agreed with

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:


"F Murtz" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:


"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2013-06-05, F Murtz wrote:

We have PAL digital.

No such thing.


--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 10th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3179
"Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine"


Quite ...

Arfa
Sort of, we still have some analogue, but they are shutting it down.


The analogue is PAL encoded. The digital has no need to be, and isn't.
Hence the comment of "no such thing" that was made, and that I agreed with

Arfa
I know but we still have some analogue so I stuck the pal in as well as
digital Although it would be unlikely to be able to buy any with
analogue still in unless second hand

On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 11:03:22 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Archibald
writes
On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 10:11:04 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Archibald
writes
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 19:23:14 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article ,
polygonum wrote:
On 01/06/2013 18:48, charles wrote:
A set used exclusively for foreign broadcasts does not need a licence.
Oh, yes, it does.

Even if it didn't - please define "foreign" in that context with
particular reference to satellite broadcasts?

I don't need to. A licence is needed to receive ANY tv broadcasts.

Amateur TV broadcasts only need an amateur licence to both send and
receive, therefore if a domestic licence isn't needed by an amateur
why should a member of the public need one?

Normally, radio amateurs don't broadcast*. The normal UK amateur radio
licence doesn't cover the reception of broadcast commercial TV signals.
*Exceptions include the transmission of news broadcasts, which require
special authorisation.

There are those who will argue that an amateur, by the terms of his
licence, should be capable of checking for interference problems, and so
should have a working broadcast TV installation. I therefore guess, for
this purpose, he doesn't need a broadcast TV licence - provided he
doesn't actually watch the TV for the purpose of enjoyment,
entertainment or education!

Anyone is legally entitled to monitor amateur transmissions in the UK
without a licence incidentally.

This is probably not so. At one time, the old TV/radio licence used to
specify that you could receive broadcast TV/radio transmissions, AND
amateur radio transmissions. It may still be there, buried in the
various rules and regulations. If it isn't, then arguably there is no
licence which authorises you to receive amateur radio/TV transmissions
(other than the amateur radio licence). This used to be the case with CB
transmissions, which (arguably) could only be received if you actually
had a CB licence.

Now if a UK amateur transmission can be legally received without a
licence, why not French, Russian or Southern Irish?

As I've said above, if there is no regulation specifically allowing you
to receive amateur TV signals, then legally, you can't. The WTA is one
of those cases where if you aren't authorised to, you can't.


Interestingly, Ireland had a tv licence nearly 2 years befoe they started
their own tv service.

Things may have been different in the early days. Interference
problems would have been rife [VHF and a video polarity that made the
spots "whiter than white"] I presume their version of the post office
was kept fairly busy.

It may have been the case in the UK too, but when I had my fun with
the licenceing people the post office had left the interference scene
and I seem to recollect there was a charge of £25-00 for an
interference complaint. This along with UHF, AGC and flywheel sync
probably only left them needing to raise money for the services of the
BBC.

Anyway I still would have found it hard to believe if I had not had it
in writing.

Satellites carrying BBC transmissions need a licence BTW.

You need a TV licence for ALL broadcast TV - full stop.

I beg to differ!

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/42/section/181


Broadcast in the legal sense, pays scant regards to the ethereal
disturbance so loved by Mr Lodge.

Oddly enough it seems to suggest that someone watching commercial TV
in Northern Ireland isn't watching a "broadcast"

I don't understand where you draw your conclusions from. Care to
explain?

Look at the definition of television broadcasting service.


Explain how CNN comes under the act and if CNN isn't a broadcasting
service under the terms of the licencing conditions then.........?

I am not telling fairy stories BTW. I did have written documentation
from the licencing authourity that recieving a foreign "broadcast"
does not require a licence.

Obviously the authourity in spite of their many shortcomings do seem
to be able to read and understand the legal requirements of the
wireless telegraphy acts.


AB