On 07/11/2007, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wednesday 07 November 2007 06:03, Brian Butterworth wrote: > > On 07/11/2007, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 06/11/2007, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ... > > > > > > > It's not quite as simple as that. It's not to do with receiving > > > > > > broadcast > > > > > > > television anymore, its spec'd as being a television service. A > > > > computer with an internet connection picking up the multicast > streams > > > > from the > > > > > > BBC > > > > > > > would require a TV license. > > > > > > > > A television services is extremely well defined though. > > > > > > OK, that should be television programme service. I'm not a lawyer. > > > > > > On Tuesday 06 November 2007 16:12, Brian Butterworth wrote: > > > > Can I also correct the above mistake. A TV Licence is NOT a licence > to > > > > > > OWN > > > > > > > a television, but to OPERATE it. > > > > > > From - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20040692.htm#9 : > > > > > > """ 9. - (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), > > > "television receiver" means any apparatus installed or used for the > > > purpose > > > of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) > any > > > television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used > for > > > any > > > other purpose. > > > > Did you not see the word "installed" in that paragraph? > > I think we merely disagree on what the words "installed" and "operate" > mean. > Something that is merely installed and *able* to be operated but isn't > actually operated would match the wording for example. (after all the > wording > is "installed OR used" not "installed AND used")
As I understand it, the licence is payable if the equipment is found, under the inspection of an appropriate officer, to be capable of receiving broadcast television. If you have a television set somewhere where a signal cannot be received, or the receiver circuity from the set is physically disabled, no licence is required. But just because the set is powered off, or because a single aerial cable has been disconnected, this would still require a licence. Minor detail, though and I hate pedantry and I think we largely agree anyway > since you were saying I was wrong about something I wasn't actually > talking > about :-D The law is somewhat pedantic. (Someone was saying it was about using a broadcast tuning circuit > (essentially) whereas actually its about a television programme service > over any mechanism.) > > Fundamentally, my ADSL connection is not subject to a TV license as a > result > because it is not installed or used for the purpose of receiving a > television > programme service. Until the quality I can get over my DSL connection is > as > good or exceeds that of the broadcast mechanism I doubt that'll change. But, it could be. The Television Licence is one of the few hypothicated taxes. One option would be to simply say that a licence is required in the current TV rules OR if there is a broadband connection. Another option would be to equate a low-bandwidth link with the current monochrome licence. That's incidentally the problem of saying "just add it to your ISP bill" > btw. > The majority of domestic TVs *are* used for receiving a TV service. The > majority of network connections aren't. Also, all analogue TVs can receive > BBC > channels and all freeview TVs in a zone with coverage can likewise. I only meant as a collection option. A law could be passed requiring the £12.50 to be taken by each ISP each month and handed over as a tax and you could opt out by providing your TV licence number. A significant chunk of computer users *don't*, *won't* (until > quality/service > matches or exceeds broadcast) and *can't* - eg for iPlayer this means > users > of Windows Vista, 95, 98, ME, XP SP1, Mac OS X, Linux[1], FreeBSD, > Solaris, > etc OR those who don't know how to upgrade their software. True, but my proposal was linked with a non-DRM, non-iPlayer distribution of content. That or else you change the fundamental aspect of the TV license vs a normal > tax - that you *can* opt out the TV license by not doing something > requiring > it. (And I do have friends in that category) But there is an unfairness that is linked to people who do not pay the licence fee being able to listen to the radio and use the online services. In this, are you saying those that don't install/use it for that, won't > install/use it for that and those that can't install/use it for that MUST > pay a license? The licence fee is almost universal, this would simply provide a way to extend that universality into the future. It is my opinion that a hypothicated tax is good way to fund the BBC as it gives everyone the right to moan about it, which would not happen if the BBC was funded from direct taxation, as John Wittingdale MP wants: http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051282 > > Has there been a later act/amendment? > > > > Yes, there are a number of SIs that modify this Act. > > Cool, didn't know that. Don't suppose you know of somewhere that lists > them? > Seems to be useful on occasion. (eg knowing about the change about > timeshifting only being OK on domestic premises etc) Have a look at this: http://search.opsi.gov.uk/search?client=semaphore_frontend&btnG=Search&site=SI&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=opsisearch_semaphore&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_epq=Wireless%20Telegraphy%20Act%201949&as_ft=i&as_occt=any or *http://tinyurl.com/ypz4va* <http://search.opsi.gov.uk/search?entqr=0&access=p&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&btnG=Search&as_epq=Wireless+Telegraphy+Act+1949&ud=1&site=SI&oe=UTF-8&as_occt=any&as_ft=i&client=rss&proxystylesheet=rss&sort=date:D:S:d1&filter=0> Michael. > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial > list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
