"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
In article , Ad C
writes
In article ,
says...

Will computer retailers now have to notify TV Licensing?

That would not work, what about people like myself who build their
own?

Possession of a CPU without a licence will be a criminal offence,
of
course you could always build your own from TTL or perhaps even
double
triodes.

A CPU can't *receive*.

"André Coutanche" wrote in message
...
kim wrote:

Okay, I was simplifying matters for the purpose of this NG but if
you insist on having the full monty:-

snip

In 1922, *all the competing interests* were merged the British
Broadcasting Company, later to become the British Broadcasting
Corporation (BBC). " [my emphasis]

So the BBC *wasn't* "a branch of the Marconi Radio Company", which is
the point I was making. And I don't know where you got the stuff about
patents from.

Marconi owned the patents on all radio receivers in the UK. They set up the
British Broadcasting _Company_ as a way of boosting radio sales. That was
financed by receipts from the patent license which is why British radio
didn't need advertsing. When the company was nationalised the government
inherited the patent rights in perpetuity. The current BBC license fee is an
extension of the right to charge for the use of the original Marconi company
patents and of course have now been extended to include televison and
whatever else the government decides. That is why you need a "BBC" license
whether you receive BBC programming or not.

(kim)

In article , Max Demian wrote:
That was my point, the equipment has to be able to *receive*, without
the need for add on cards or 'boxes', a computer (without a TV
receiver card) or 'production' monitor is no more able to receive a
television service as a washing machine or toaster can.

A computer with broadband capability would be able to receive TV programmes
if the BBC streamed it.

That's when you might find the TV licensing people hassling you to buy a TV
licence for a computer (even if you don't watch TV).

That's precisely the point I tried to make, a few postings back. My computer,
and in fact any decent computer with a broadband connection, already *is*
capable of TV "reception", of a sort. The quality varies of course, but at its
best it's easily equal to the quality of the worst I've seen on actual digital
broadcasts, and depending on content, reasonably watchable. Even though the
licence only pays for the BBC, the legal requirement to buy one applies
whether or not you ever watch BBC broadcasts, so if I didn't happen to have a
licence already (because I have a TV set), I wonder if my possession of a
computer with a broadband connection would require me to buy a TV licence? If
not, then I wonder if the position will change if the BBC start broadcasdting
on the internet, and how on earth will they know who's using their computers
to watch television?

Rod.

In article ws.net,
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
Possession of a CPU without a licence will be a criminal offence,
of
course you could always build your own from TTL or perhaps even
double
triodes.

A CPU can't *receive*.

If it's part of a computer with a broadband connection to the internet,
then yes, it jolly well can receive TV broadcasts. There are plenty of
channels already available from every country in the world, and it's
only a matter of time before the BBC joins in. I doubd if anyone has
fully considered the implications of this with regard to the TV
licence.

Rod.

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
snip

If they didn't have the repeats they could show ten times as many
different
films.


No doubt you would also only want the film shown at a time that you
will be watching....

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
eenews.net...

That was my point, the equipment has to be able to *receive*,
without
the need for add on cards or 'boxes', a computer (without a TV
receiver card) or 'production' monitor is no more able to receive
a
television service as a washing machine or toaster can.

A computer with broadband capability would be able to receive TV
programmes
if the BBC streamed it.

Yes, but it is the vraodband servioce that is allowing it to recieve
the service, anagin a computer is like a production monitor, it can't
*receive* any service unless other equipment is used.


That's when you might find the TV licensing people hassling you to
buy a TV
licence for a computer (even if you don't watch TV).


No you won't, a computer can't *receive* any such service, if and
when you either buy a TV tuner / receiving card (or, possibly in the
future, buy a broadband service) that is when you *will* need a
licence.

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
om...
In article
ws.net,
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
Possession of a CPU without a licence will be a criminal
offence,
of
course you could always build your own from TTL or perhaps even
double
triodes.

A CPU can't *receive*.

If it's part of a computer with a broadband connection to the
internet,
then yes, it jolly well can receive TV broadcasts.

Best that every component that could be ever use to build a receiver
be subject to a TV licence then, just in case it's use as such...

There are plenty of
channels already available from every country in the world, and
it's
only a matter of time before the BBC joins in. I doubd if anyone
has
fully considered the implications of this with regard to the TV
licence.


Indeed, but claiming that a computer will need to have a TV licence
is bordering on the scare story, although I can see a time that a
IPTV 'service pipe' supplied by an ISP will need to be licensed.

Roderick Stewart wrote:
But then... the BBC are planning to put their broacasts on the internet,
arent't they? What are we to assume about the legality of watching those
with or without a licence, or even *owning a computer*? The current
licence is apparently required if you have equipment installed for the use
of receiving broadcasts, which would by that definition include any
computer connected to the internet. If they want to continue funding the
BBC from a licence fee payable only by those who watch television, they'll
find themselves with a situation that is impossible to administer.

Rod.

AFAIK the BBC limit internet transmissions to UK only addresses as well.
This is done by filtering the IP addresses of known ISPs.

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
...

Advertisers pay for TV commercials, and this is how the Western world
works. So what!

Consumers pay for TV commercials in the form of higher prices and do so
whether we watch them or not. For every £1billion spent on commercial TV
programmes, £8billion is added to the price of goods in the shops.

An employer pays for their employees' training, and most businesses should
recoup that expenditure in the short term. When the employee leaves, that
is that, and there is no come back on the first employer. Even the NHS is
forced to accept that.

That is a good argument for forcing NHS and other trainees to sign long-term
employment contracts like they do in many other other countries. It is not
an argument for abolishing the BBC license fee.

(kim)

In article , says...


The license fee is for the right to use receiving equipment, it has nothing
to do with the right to watch programmes. The BBC was originally a branch of

I know that already, it still do not mean it is right.


the Marconi Radio Company and the government inherited all its patent rights
when it was incorporated in 1922. Regardless of where a programme originates

I did not know that, I think you are wrong there.


you pay a license fee for the equipment to receive it. Added to that many if
not all of the technicians at Sky and ITV were trained by the BBC at the
license payer's expense.



It islike everywhere else, you go and do a job somewhere, get trained
and then go somewhere that is better.