| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 38:20:55 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
22 files (29,767K bytes) |
| Messages: | 173,683 |
On 10/06/2025 15:45, JNugent wrote:
On 04/06/2025 06:11 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
You wouldn't watch your own off-air video-recording (VHS / DVD-R / PVR >>>> / Whatever) via internet streaming, would you?
You might, if you were away from home and wanted to watch something
unavailable locally to where you are.
Sounds like a very clever and probably next to non-existent, case.
Easier to download to an iPad before leaving.
Can you download /any/ TV programme to /any/ computer for off-air use,
and download it simply? I'm sure I've noticed odd programmes that aren't available for streaming after live broadcasting.
And streamed programmes aren't viewable using slo-mo or frame stepping
in the way that older PVRs can (the new ones don't seem to be able to do
it).
I prefer Sky+HD. It doesn't "do" streaming. Anything on catch-up is downloaded to the drive and watchable in the same way as if it had
been recorded off-air.
A few movies from Sky Cinema are copy-protected.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
I prefer Sky+HD. It doesn't "do" streaming. Anything on catch-up is
downloaded to the drive and watchable in the same way as if it had
been recorded off-air.
+1 SkyQ much the same, especially good for people with very poor
internet connections, it can sort out a download in its own time. You
can also start watching the download with only a couple of minutes of
the item downloaded.
It is very good but expensive.
A few movies from Sky Cinema are copy-protected.
Feed the hdmi into a modulator, record the output on a PVR.
On 21/07/2025 01:33 PM, Bob Latham wrote:
-a-a-a JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
I prefer Sky+HD. It doesn't "do" streaming. Anything on catch-up is
downloaded to the drive and watchable in the same way as if it had
been recorded off-air.
+1 SkyQ much the same, especially good for people with very poor
internet connections, it can sort out a download in its own time. You
can also start watching the download with only a couple of minutes of
the item downloaded.
I had Sky Q, but the lack of a SCART output was too much to stomach. I
sent it back and reverted to Sky+HD.
It is very good but expensive.
I think Sky installed Q for free, and (of course) left the old Sky+HD
box with me. When I got rhem to come and take the Q box away, I assumed
they would reconnect the Sky+ box that I had carefullystored away. But
no - they gave me a new one (meaning that I still have in good condition
as a spare).
A few movies from Sky Cinema are copy-protected.
Feed the hdmi into a modulator, record the output on a PVR.
There's an easier way...
On 21/07/2025 01:33 PM, Bob Latham wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
I had Sky Q, but the lack of a SCART output was too much to
stomach. I sent it back and reverted to Sky+HD.
A few movies from Sky Cinema are copy-protected.
Feed the hdmi into a modulator, record the output on a PVR.
There's an easier way...
On 31/05/2025 in message <101fu9a$1fpqv$1@dont-email.me> JMB99 wrote:
On 31/05/2025 21:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I watch less and less live TV and I'm getting more and more fed up with >>>the BBC who ignore complaints and feel the Bronze Buffoon is our new king >>>and so give him a great chunk or air time each night. We have just >>>commemorated the 85th anniversary of the Dunkirk evacuation but if you >>>only watched BBC you wouldn't know it (I managed to find some quite good >>>films on YouTube).
I saw quite a number of programmes about Dunkirk, what channels were you >>watching?
BBC News24 - only channel I watch live!
On 31 May 2025 20:22:59 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
Is anybody here aware of a definitive guide to what is needed to legally >>give up my TV licence? I have a vague feeling that you have to get rid of >>anything that is capable of receiving live TV but need a reliable steer.
You don't need to get rid of anything. The TV licence is for the *use*
of equipment, not its ownership. You can own as many TV sets as you
like without a licence. You need a licence to watch or record what is
now called 'live' TV, i.e. broadcast TV, or TV recieved via any other
service *at the same time as it is being broadcast*.
In article <me6t87FtjvuU1@mid.individual.net>,
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/07/2025 01:33 PM, Bob Latham wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
[Snip]
I had Sky Q, but the lack of a SCART output was too much to
stomach. I sent it back and reverted to Sky+HD.
I don't have any need for analogue video so the lack of SCART wasn't
an issue. What we didn't and still don't like are the graphical
listings for your recording and things but the big advantage of Q is virtually no limit on how many simultaneous recordings you can do
without a clash. Everything worth watching is on at the same time.
[Snip]
A few movies from Sky Cinema are copy-protected.
Feed the hdmi into a modulator, record the output on a PVR.
There's an easier way...
Please enlighten ...
BBC News24 - only channel I watch live!
I now prefer Sky News.
In article <mhhv7k5genu0orlmtp8acsjcbgmkuc29vp@4ax.com>,
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
BBC News24 - only channel I watch live!
I now prefer Sky News.
Those channels are amazing, they are completely captured by woke
ideology neither have the remotest connection to reality.
Now had you said Sky news Australia, that would have been very
different, they speak some sense.
:-)
Bob.
In article <mhhv7k5genu0orlmtp8acsjcbgmkuc29vp@4ax.com>,
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
BBC News24 - only channel I watch live!
I now prefer Sky News.
Those channels are amazing, they are completely captured by woke
ideology neither have the remotest connection to reality.
Now had you said Sky news Australia, that would have been very
different, they speak some sense.
I watch less and less live TV and I'm getting more and more fed up with
the BBC who ignore complaints and feel the Bronze Buffoon is our new
king and so give him a great chunk or air time each night. We have just commemorated the 85th anniversary of the Dunkirk evacuation but if you
only watched BBC you wouldn't know it (I managed to find some quite good films on YouTube).
On 31/05/2025 21:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I watch less and less live TV and I'm getting more and more fed up
with the BBC who ignore complaints and feel the Bronze Buffoon is our
new king and so give him a great chunk or air time each night. We have >>commemorated the 85th anniversary of the Dunkirk evacuation but if you >>only watched BBC you wouldn't know it (I managed to find some quite
good films on YouTube).
I saw quite a number of programmes about Dunkirk, what channels were
you watching?
In message <101fu9a$1fpqv$1@dont-email.me>, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> writes
On 31/05/2025 21:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I watch less and less live TV and I'm getting more and more fed up
with the BBC who ignore complaints and feel the Bronze Buffoon is our
new king and so give him a great chunk or air time each night. We
have commemorated the 85th anniversary of the Dunkirk evacuation but
if you only watched BBC you wouldn't know it (I managed to find some
quite good films on YouTube).
I saw quite a number of programmes about Dunkirk, what channels were
you watching?
The 85th anniversary hardly seems like a major one, so I'm a little surprised that there were any at all.
On 31/05/2025 21:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I watch less and less live TV and I'm getting more and more fed up with >>the BBC who ignore complaints and feel the Bronze Buffoon is our new king >>and so give him a great chunk or air time each night. We have just >>commemorated the 85th anniversary of the Dunkirk evacuation but if you >>only watched BBC you wouldn't know it (I managed to find some quite good >>films on YouTube).
I saw quite a number of programmes about Dunkirk, what channels were you >watching?
In message <101fu9a$1fpqv$1@dont-email.me>, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> writes
I saw quite a number of programmes about Dunkirk, what channels were
you watching?
The 85th anniversary hardly seems like a major one, so I'm a little >surprised that there were any at all.
The 85th anniversary hardly seems like a major one, so I'm a little surprised that there were any at all.
I watch less and less live TV and I'm getting more and more fed up with
the BBC who ignore complaints and feel the Bronze Buffoon is our new
king and so give him a great chunk or air time each night. We have just commemorated the 85th anniversary of the Dunkirk evacuation but if you
only watched BBC you wouldn't know it (I managed to find some quite good films on YouTube).
Is anybody here aware of a definitive guide to what is needed to legally give up my TV licence? I have a vague feeling that you have to get rid
of anything that is capable of receiving live TV but need a reliable steer.
Many thanks.
Is anybody here aware of a definitive guide to what is needed to legally >give up my TV licence? I have a vague feeling that you have to get rid of >anything that is capable of receiving live TV but need a reliable steer.
You can watch streaming services such as Amazon, Netflix etc, and the terrestrial TV 'catchup' services with the exception of BBC iPlayer, without a licence.
On 01/06/2025 10:20, Roderick Stewart wrote:The TVL site is referring a licence allowing you to watch live
You can watch streaming services such as Amazon, Netflix etc, and the
terrestrial TV-a 'catchup'-a services with the exception of BBC iPlayer,
without a licence.
That's not what the TVL website says, see my other post.
On 01/06/2025 10:49, Mark Carver wrote:
On 01/06/2025 10:20, Roderick Stewart wrote:
You can watch streaming services such as Amazon, Netflix etc, and the
terrestrial TV-a 'catchup'-a services with the exception of BBC iPlayer, >>> without a licence.
That's not what the TVL website says, see my other post.
The TVL site is referring a licence allowing you to watch live
programmes from streaming services.-a The only catchup streaming service that requires a licence is iPlayer.
On 01/06/2025 12:48, Andy Burns wrote:
On 01/06/2025 10:49, Mark Carver wrote:
On 01/06/2025 10:20, Roderick Stewart wrote:
You can watch streaming services such as Amazon, Netflix etc, and the
terrestrial TV-a 'catchup'-a services with the exception of BBC iPlayer, >>>> without a licence.
That's not what the TVL website says, see my other post.
The TVL site is referring a licence allowing you to watch live
programmes from streaming services.-a The only catchup streaming service
that requires a licence is iPlayer.
Oh yes ! A totally unenforceable difference !
Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> wrote:
On 01/06/2025 12:48, Andy Burns wrote:
On 01/06/2025 10:49, Mark Carver wrote:
On 01/06/2025 10:20, Roderick Stewart wrote:
You can watch streaming services such as Amazon, Netflix etc, and the >>>>> terrestrial TV-a 'catchup'-a services with the exception of BBC iPlayer, >>>>> without a licence.
That's not what the TVL website says, see my other post.
The TVL site is referring a licence allowing you to watch live
programmes from streaming services.-a The only catchup streaming service >>> that requires a licence is iPlayer.
Oh yes ! A totally unenforceable difference !
Not if the inspector can hear the sound of the current episode of <insert programme name here> drifting through the open window. Unfortunately lots
of people, usually poor, still get done.
You can tell TVL that you no longer watch anything that requires a
licence - there's a website to do this if you want - but you don't
have to. You can just stop paying.
You can ignore all their threatening letters and just put them in the
bin. If one of their 'inspectors' calls, DO NOT TALK TO THEM, and
above all, DO NOT LET THEM IN. They have no more rights than you have,
and certainly no legal right to enter your home.
Rod.
He also has been known to criticise something the BBC has broadcast often early the next day before he would have much of a chance to get an opinion second hand. Still denies he ever watches anything but You Tube. CanrCOt stand hypocrites.
On 01/06/2025 10:20, Roderick Stewart wrote:
You can watch streaming services such as Amazon, Netflix etc, and the
terrestrial TV 'catchup' services with the exception of BBC iPlayer,
without a licence.
That's not what the TVL website says, see my other post.
However, I do agree with you, if you genuinely don't watch or listen to >anything the Beeb broadcasts or streams, just stop paying, and tell any >inspectors that might turn up to bugger off.
The TVL site is referring a licence allowing you to watch live
programmes from streaming services.a The only catchup streaming service
that requires a licence is iPlayer.
Oh yes ! A totally unenforceable difference !
On 01/06/2025 22:29, Marland wrote:
He also has been known to criticise something the BBC has broadcast often
early the next day before he would have much of a chance to get an opinion >> second hand. Still denies he ever watches anything but You Tube. CanAt
stand hypocrites.
In the early days of Sky, a friend always used to go on and on about it
and large range of stations he could watch.
Nearly always when I spoke him on the phone, I could hear BBC 1 in the >background.
You need a licence to watch anything that*anybody* broadcasts
Strictly speaking I think you need a licence to listen to any radio transmission.
On 02/06/2025 09:08, Roderick Stewart wrote:
You need a licence to watch anything that*anybody* broadcasts
Strictly speaking I think you need a licence to listen to any radio transmission.
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 15:12:58 +0100, Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com>
wrote:
Oh yes ! A totally unenforceable difference !
TCP/IP being a two-way protocol, technically whoever is sending
material could know who is receiving it, unlike reception of a
transmitted signal over the air where no such mechanism exists.
I don't know who has legal access to the reverse channel of a TV
streaming service, though the likes of Amazon and Netflix etc must
have access to it in order to know whether a subscription has been
paid. It might not be correct to assume that it would be possible to
watch iPlayer without being detected.
No, 'radio' licences were abolished many years ago.
On 02/06/2025 11:18, Chris Green wrote:
No, 'radio' licences were abolished many years ago.
Broadcast radio receiving licences were abolished.
Everyone is permitted to receive broadcast, amateur radio and Standard Frequency transmissions. Anything else requires a licence though it is
not normally enforced.
On 2025-06-02 09:22, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 15:12:58 +0100, Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com>
wrote:
Oh yes ! A totally unenforceable difference !
TCP/IP being a two-way protocol, technically whoever is sending
material could know who is receiving it, unlike reception of a
transmitted signal over the air where no such mechanism exists.
IANAL, but I think you're misunderstanding this somewhat, the above para
is correct, but not the following ...
I don't know who has legal access to the reverse channel of a TV
streaming service, though the likes of Amazon and Netflix etc must
have access to it in order to know whether a subscription has been
paid. It might not be correct to assume that it would be possible to
watch iPlayer without being detected.
While in principle technically it is possible to trace a connection back
to a household, this is how downloaders of copyrighted content can end
up in the courts, it is an involved legal process. Although I don't
think it's relevant to BBC iPlayer and possibly other streaming
services, let's temporarily divert to explore that scenario, because its >explanation is helpful.
AIUI, to accomplish this, the copyright holder's legal eagles must go >through the following procedure:
1) Monitor the hosting site and link the downloading of a particular >copyrighted work at a particular date and time to a particular IP.
2) Look up the ISP for that IP address.
3) Send a threatening letter to an ISP to obtain the name and address
of the customer who was using that particular IP at that particular date
and time, with which the ISP will probably comply, but, if not, then
they'd have to obtain a court order to force the ISP to divulge this >information.
4) Finally they can now send a threatening letter to the account
holder, demanding some sort of monetary compensation for the breach of >copyright, and take them to court if they refuse.
Similarly with the MAC address of the network interface card, but much,
much more involved legally.
So you can see this is quite an involved process, with legal hurdles
along the way. In general it's much simpler legally speaking to just
take down the sharing site, but today so much of social media uses >encryption and private chat groups, that I would guess that this process
is likely very often to fail at the very first hurdle.
However, I'm pretty sure that this is not what the BBC does with
iPlayer. Consider, to stream iPlayer from the website, you have to be >signed in, but GetIPlayer works whether you are signed in via a browser
or not, literally it just works (though it is showing signs of
flakiness, with lots of BBC search URLs now not being found, but that's >another story). What this contradiction implies is that the BBC are
doing the verification via the web interface, and little else is
involved, though read on to discover the exception.
Effectively, the system server is saying to the client: "You want to
watch or hear this programme? Fine, prove to me you are entitled to!"
so you sign in, and now the BBC can verify things against your account >details. In this way they could, in principle at least, verify those >details for you having paid the TV Licence, though I don't know whether
they actually do that, perhaps they only rely upon your honesty when you >state that you have. It's been a while since I created my account, and
I rarely use it, so others may be able to clarify this point better than I.
The one exception is that the servers blanket check the client IPs for >originating from the UK. To watch iPLayer or use GetIPlayer abroad -
note that in this regard there is no difference between the two, telling
us that the mechanism employed is not the same as the above where there
was a significant difference - you have to use a proxy server in the
UK, often owned by a VPN host, although the BBC also blocks most or all
of the better known ones.
JMB99 wrote:
Strictly speaking I think you need a licence to listen to any radio
transmission.
Not for radios since 1971, or dogs since 1987, I seem to remember there >being an implied licence to use telephones, but can't find any reference
to it ...
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 11:31:22 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:
JMB99 wrote:
Strictly speaking I think you need a licence to listen to any
radio transmission.
Not for radios since 1971, or dogs since 1987, I seem to remember
there being an implied licence to use telephones, but can't find any >reference to it ...
Indeed. I've kept one as a souvenir (a radio licence, not a dog).
My loudspeakers do include woofers though.
Rod.
All they'd have to do would be to write a law requiring ISPs to log
the required information and pass it on to the BBC, who could then see
who was watching their programmes. They'd love that. In the case of
over the air broadcasts, no such mechanism exists, but with an
internet connection, the possibility is always there.
In this way they could, in principle at least, verify those details
for you having paid the TV Licence, though I don't know whether they actually do that, perhaps they only rely upon your honesty when you
state that you have.
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 02/06/2025 11:18, Chris Green wrote:
No, 'radio' licences were abolished many years ago.
Broadcast radio receiving licences were abolished.
Everyone is permitted to receive broadcast, amateur radio and Standard
Frequency transmissions. Anything else requires a licence though it is
not normally enforced.
Did you technically need the short lived CB licence to listen in to those using the approved system or was it just for those who transmitted as well?
Though did any one actually bother to get a licence.
Didn't you also once need a licence for a metal detector, (presumably
just in case you picked up The Home Service on it ) ?
On 31 May 2025 20:22:59 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
Is anybody here aware of a definitive guide to what is needed to legally
give up my TV licence? I have a vague feeling that you have to get rid of
anything that is capable of receiving live TV but need a reliable steer.
You don't need to get rid of anything. The TV licence is for the *use*
of equipment, not its ownership. You can own as many TV sets as you
like without a licence. You need a licence to watch or record what is
now called 'live' TV, i.e. broadcast TV, or TV recieved via any other
service *at the same time as it is being broadcast*.
You can watch streaming services such as Amazon, Netflix etc, and the terrestrial TV 'catchup' services with the exception of BBC iPlayer, without a licence.
You can tell TVL that you no longer watch anything that requires a
licence - there's a website to do this if you want - but you don't
have to. You can just stop paying.
You can ignore all their threatening letters and just put them in the
bin. If one of their 'inspectors' calls, DO NOT TALK TO THEM, and
above all, DO NOT LET THEM IN. They have no more rights than you have,
and certainly no legal right to enter your home.
Rod.
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 10:49:18 +0100, Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com>
wrote:
On 01/06/2025 10:20, Roderick Stewart wrote:
You can watch streaming services such as Amazon, Netflix etc, and the
terrestrial TV 'catchup' services with the exception of BBC iPlayer,
without a licence.
That's not what the TVL website says, see my other post.
However, I do agree with you, if you genuinely don't watch or listen to
anything the Beeb broadcasts or streams, just stop paying, and tell any
inspectors that might turn up to bugger off.
You need a licence to watch anything that *anybody* broadcasts, not
just the BBC, if you watch it or record it at the same time that it's
being broadcast. This is regardless of how you watch it, whether
off-air or via internet streaming.
You can avoid the need for a licence if you watch it later on one of
the internet 'catchup' services. It would be exactly the same
programme, but the technology you use to watch it makes all the
difference, for some reason.
BBC iPlayer is an exception in that you need a licence even to watch
the BBC's catchup service, though you can use all the others.
Rod.
You wouldn't watch your own off-air video-recording (VHS / DVD-R / PVR / Whatever) via internet streaming, would you?
You need a licence to watch anything that *anybody* broadcasts, not
just the BBC, if you watch it or record it at the same time that it's
being broadcast. This is regardless of how you watch it, whether
off-air or via internet streaming.
You wouldn't watch your own off-air video-recording (VHS / DVD-R / PVR / >Whatever) via internet streaming, would you?
Small point:
What about using an Amazon Fire stick (or, for that matter, a smart TV)
to listen to audio broadcasts?
After all, the radio licence was abolished a long time ago.
I'm not sure if the ban on using BBC iPlayer applies only to
television or to anything that iPlayer provides, including radio.
On Wed, 04 Jun 2025 18:07:16 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
You need a licence to watch anything that *anybody* broadcasts, not
just the BBC, if you watch it or record it at the same time that it's
being broadcast. This is regardless of how you watch it, whether
off-air or via internet streaming.
You wouldn't watch your own off-air video-recording (VHS / DVD-R / PVR /
Whatever) via internet streaming, would you?
I'm not sure what point you're making here, If you're talking about recordings of off-air broadcasts, you'd have needed a licence to
record them, so you shouldn't have them.
I'm not sure of the legality of recording something while you have a
licence, and then cancelling the licence. Would material you'd already recorded subsequently become illegal to watch? I wonder if anyone has
ever thought about this?
I'm not sure of the legality of recording something while you have a
licence, and then cancelling the licence. Would material you'd already
recorded subsequently become illegal to watch? I wonder if anyone has
ever thought about this?
Of course they have. That's why it's actually a licence to install and
use television receiving apparatus. So, you can record off air while
the licence is in force.
However, in accordance with Section 70 of the Copyright Designs and
Patents Act 1988, you are only allowed to record a programme 'for
private and domestic use solely for the purpose of enabling it to be
viewed or listened to at a more convenient time'.
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 19:22:52 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
I'm not sure of the legality of recording something while you have a
licence, and then cancelling the licence. Would material you'd already
recorded subsequently become illegal to watch? I wonder if anyone has
ever thought about this?
Of course they have. That's why it's actually a licence to install and
use television receiving apparatus. So, you can record off air while
the licence is in force.
However, in accordance with Section 70 of the Copyright Designs and
Patents Act 1988, you are only allowed to record a programme 'for
private and domestic use solely for the purpose of enabling it to be
viewed or listened to at a more convenient time'.
Fair enough, but what if the 'more convenient time' was after you'd
cancelled your licence, even though you'd previously had a licence at
the time when you made the recording?
Does your collection of
previoiusly legal recordings suddenly become illegal to watch?
Does the act of cancelling the licence change the status of legally
recorded material that you already have?
I doubt if this has ever been specified, or even tested in court, as
it was probably never expected to occur. But now, apparently people
are abandoning the BBC and cancelling their licences in droves, so
it's probably happening quite a lot.
On 02/06/2025 11:18, Chris Green wrote:
No, 'radio' licences were abolished many years ago.
Broadcast radio receiving licences were abolished.
Everyone is permitted to receive broadcast, amateur radio and
Standard Frequency transmissions. Anything else requires a licence
though it is not normally enforced.
JMB99 wrote:
On 02/06/2025 11:18, Chris Green wrote:
No, 'radio' licences were abolished many years ago.
Broadcast radio receiving licences were abolished.
Everyone is permitted to receive broadcast, amateur radio and
Standard Frequency transmissions. Anything else requires a licence
though it is not normally enforced.
There used to be a licence for car radios.
In article <mafj28FnmsiU1@mid.individual.net>,
Ashley Booth <removetab@snglinks.com> wrote:
JMB99 wrote:
On 02/06/2025 11:18, Chris Green wrote:
No, 'radio' licences were abolished many years ago.
Broadcast radio receiving licences were abolished.
Everyone is permitted to receive broadcast, amateur radio and
Standard Frequency transmissions. Anything else requires a
licence though it is not normally enforced.
There used to be a licence for car radios.
I suspect they weren't covered by the 'household' licence. AS I
recall, only portables running on internal batteries were covered,
On Fri, 06 Jun 25 08:45:02 UTC
charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
In article <mafj28FnmsiU1@mid.individual.net>,
Ashley Booth <removetab@snglinks.com> wrote:
JMB99 wrote:
On 02/06/2025 11:18, Chris Green wrote:
No, 'radio' licences were abolished many years ago.
Broadcast radio receiving licences were abolished.
Everyone is permitted to receive broadcast, amateur radio and
Standard Frequency transmissions. Anything else requires a
licence though it is not normally enforced.
There used to be a licence for car radios.
I suspect they weren't covered by the 'household' licence. AS I
recall, only portables running on internal batteries were covered,
That sounds correct. I remember going into a Post Office when a
student and being told the exact some thing when asking about our TV
set in our rented accommodation. As the guy said: "If you can bring it
in here, put it on the counter, and turn it on, then it qualifies as
on of your parent's sets".
JMB99 wrote:
On 02/06/2025 11:18, Chris Green wrote:
No, 'radio' licences were abolished many years ago.
Broadcast radio receiving licences were abolished.
Everyone is permitted to receive broadcast, amateur radio and
Standard Frequency transmissions. Anything else requires a licence
though it is not normally enforced.
There used to be a licence for car radios.
On 01/06/2025 17:34, Tweed wrote:
Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> wrote:With all the inherent delays with digital broadcasting and streaming, is >anything live ? :-)
On 01/06/2025 12:48, Andy Burns wrote:
On 01/06/2025 10:49, Mark Carver wrote:
On 01/06/2025 10:20, Roderick Stewart wrote:
You can watch streaming services such as Amazon, Netflix etc, and the >>>>>> terrestrial TVa 'catchup'a services with the exception of BBC iPlayer, >>>>>> without a licence.
That's not what the TVL website says, see my other post.
The TVL site is referring a licence allowing you to watch live
programmes from streaming services.a The only catchup streaming service >>>> that requires a licence is iPlayer.
Oh yes ! A totally unenforceable difference !
Not if the inspector can hear the sound of the current episode of <insert
programme name here> drifting through the open window. Unfortunately lots
of people, usually poor, still get done.
On 06/06/2025 08:18, Ashley Booth wrote:
JMB99 wrote:
On 02/06/2025 11:18, Chris Green wrote:
No, 'radio' licences were abolished many years ago.
Broadcast radio receiving licences were abolished.
Everyone is permitted to receive broadcast, amateur radio and
Standard Frequency transmissions. Anything else requires a licence
though it is not normally enforced.
There used to be a licence for car radios.
This was in addition to the licence for "home" radios. I think both were 25/- (or -u1.25). If you had a TV licence (colour or b/w) this included the "home" radio but not the car radio.
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:101usab$29t8t$1@dont-email.me...
On 06/06/2025 08:18, Ashley Booth wrote:
JMB99 wrote:
On 02/06/2025 11:18, Chris Green wrote:
No, 'radio' licences were abolished many years ago.
Broadcast radio receiving licences were abolished.
Everyone is permitted to receive broadcast, amateur radio and
Standard Frequency transmissions.-a Anything else requires a licence
though it is not normally enforced.
There used to be a licence for car radios.
This was in addition to the licence for "home" radios. I think both
were 25/- (or -u1.25). If you had a TV licence (colour or b/w) this
included the "home" radio but not the car radio.
I hadn't realised that a radio licence was abolished as recently as
1971. I also didn't know that before then, a separate licence was needed
for a car. I presume the licence was per-car rather than per-household,
so if you had two cars (and no TV) you needed three radio licences: one
for home and one each for the two cars. What happened if you changed
your car: did you have to cancel the old licence and take out a new one
for the new car registration? Obviously that last question is only
relevant if the licence is per-car.
As an aside, I see that it was even more recently (1987) that dog
licences were abolished, rather spoiling the punch-line in the
early-1900s comedy song "She cost me seven and sixpence" ;-)
On 08/06/2025 20:47, NY wrote:
As an aside, I see that it was even more recently (1987) that dog
licences were abolished, rather spoiling the punch-line in the
early-1900s comedy song "She cost me seven and sixpence" ;-)
I thought that was the wedding licence, hence the bingo call, "Seven and six, was she worth it?"
On 09/06/2025 14:49, Max Demian wrote:
On 08/06/2025 20:47, NY wrote:
As an aside, I see that it was even more recently (1987) that dog
licences were abolished, rather spoiling the punch-line in the
early-1900s comedy song "She cost me seven and sixpence" ;-)
I thought that was the wedding licence, hence the bingo call, "Seven
and six, was she worth it?"
I think the joke in the song was that at the time (1900 or thereabouts), *both* a marriage licence and a dog licence cost the same (7/6) and so
he wishes he'd spent that money on a dog rather than a wife. (*)
Apparently the dog licence was the same cost for the whole period of
history when it was needed, apart from after decimalisation when the equivalent was 37 1/2p which was reduced to 37p after the 1/2p coin was withdrawn from circulation.
I've no idea how much the cost of a wedding licence (or the cost of
calling the banns or civil equivalent) varied over time. I was surprised
to read that civil ceremonies (register office) date back as far as 1837 when central registration (Somerset House, St Catherine's House etc)
began. I'd imagined that it was some time in the early 1900s (maybe
after WWI) when there was first a non-religious alternative to a church wedding.
(*) I first heard the song when a family history society that my parents belonged to was staging a concert for members at which a melodrama was performed (my dad was the evil baddie) and then some members were press- ganged to perform various music hall songs - Let The Great Big World
Keep Turning; Oh, Oh, Antonio; I'm Shy Mary Ellen, I'm Shy etc. At least no-one had to perform "The Baby's Name" which requires a prodigious feat
of memory to remember and then sing lots of words and names that were associated with press reports of the Boer War - as performed by
Cosmotheka, a music-hall revival group https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=Kw9mIRmuw2Q You wonder how many times they had to practice until they
were fluent!
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 10:49:18 +0100, Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com>
wrote:
On 01/06/2025 10:20, Roderick Stewart wrote:
You can watch streaming services such as Amazon, Netflix etc, and the
terrestrial TV 'catchup' services with the exception of BBC iPlayer,
without a licence.
That's not what the TVL website says, see my other post.
However, I do agree with you, if you genuinely don't watch or listen to >anything the Beeb broadcasts or streams, just stop paying, and tell any >inspectors that might turn up to bugger off.
You need a licence to watch anything that *anybody* broadcasts, not
just the BBC, if you watch it or record it at the same time that it's
being broadcast. This is regardless of how you watch it, whether
off-air or via internet streaming.
I've no idea how much the cost of a wedding licence (or the cost of
calling the banns or civil equivalent) varied over time. I was surprised
to read that civil ceremonies (register office) date back as far as 1837 when central registration (Somerset House, St Catherine's House etc)
began. I'd imagined that it was some time in the early 1900s (maybe
after WWI) when there was first a non-religious alternative to a church wedding.
You need a licence to watch anything that *anybody* broadcasts, not
just the BBC, if you watch it or record it at the same time that it's
being broadcast. This is regardless of how you watch it, whether
off-air or via internet streaming.
It's an interesting question as to the definition of 'broadcasting' in the >context of streaming. Does it need a 'broadcaster'? Doing a public >livestream on Youtube/Twitter/Twitch/Facebook Live might be construed as >broadcasting. But when does it stop becoming broadcasting? Is a Zoom call >broadcasting? Probably not if it's a closed call, but what if I publish the >link and let anyone join?
JNugent wrote:
You wouldn't watch your own off-air video-recording (VHS / DVD-R / PVR
/ Whatever) via internet streaming, would you?
You might, if you were away from home and wanted to watch something unavailable locally to where you are.
On Wed, 04 Jun 2025 18:07:16 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
You need a licence to watch anything that *anybody* broadcasts, not
just the BBC, if you watch it or record it at the same time that it's
being broadcast. This is regardless of how you watch it, whether
off-air or via internet streaming.
You wouldn't watch your own off-air video-recording (VHS / DVD-R / PVR /
Whatever) via internet streaming, would you?
I'm not sure what point you're making here, If you're talking about recordings of off-air broadcasts, you'd have needed a licence to
record them, so you shouldn't have them.
I'm not sure of the legality of recording something while you have a
licence, and then cancelling the licence. Would material you'd already recorded subsequently become illegal to watch? I wonder if anyone has
ever thought about this?
JMB99 wrote:
On 02/06/2025 11:18, Chris Green wrote:
No, 'radio' licences were abolished many years ago.
Broadcast radio receiving licences were abolished.
Everyone is permitted to receive broadcast, amateur radio and
Standard Frequency transmissions. Anything else requires a licence
though it is not normally enforced.
There used to be a licence for car radios.
Ashley Booth <removetab@snglinks.com> wrote:
JMB99 wrote:
On 02/06/2025 11:18, Chris Green wrote:
No, 'radio' licences were abolished many years ago.
Broadcast radio receiving licences were abolished.
Everyone is permitted to receive broadcast, amateur radio and
Standard Frequency transmissions. Anything else requires a licence
though it is not normally enforced.
There used to be a licence for car radios.
I suspect they weren't covered by the 'household' licence. AS I recall,
only portables running on internal batteries were covered,
NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
I've no idea how much the cost of a wedding licence (or the cost of
calling the banns or civil equivalent) varied over time. I was
surprised to read that civil ceremonies (register office) date back as
far as 1837 when central registration (Somerset House, St Catherine's
House etc) began. I'd imagined that it was some time in the early
1900s (maybe after WWI) when there was first a non-religious
alternative to a church wedding.
It might be something to do with nonconformists - for a long time a Methodist/etc chapel wasn't a Proper Church (of England) and you had to
do a civil wedding and then the church wedding at another time.
Ah yes, Marriage Act 1836 meant you could have a nonconformist wedding if
a registrar was also present: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonconformist_(Protestantism)#Disabilities_removed
and similar applied to Catholics, Muslims, etc rather than having an
Anglican wedding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1836
On 06/06/2025 08:18 AM, Ashley Booth wrote:
JMB99 wrote:
Broadcast radio receiving licences were abolished.
Everyone is permitted to receive broadcast, amateur radio and
Standard Frequency transmissions.-a Anything else requires a licence
though it is not normally enforced.
There used to be a licence for car radios.
It was only another side of the requirement for a premises to have a licence. The vehicle was treated as premises, separate from the home.
Surely you never needed a radio licence for a battery portable
radio, wherever you played it. (It was covered by your home
licence.) And a car radio runs off the car battery, so it would seem
to be equivalent.
On 10/06/2025 15:49, JNugent wrote:
On 06/06/2025 08:18 AM, Ashley Booth wrote:
JMB99 wrote:
Broadcast radio receiving licences were abolished.
Everyone is permitted to receive broadcast, amateur radio and
Standard Frequency transmissions. Anything else requires a licence
though it is not normally enforced.
There used to be a licence for car radios.
It was only another side of the requirement for a premises to have a
licence. The vehicle was treated as premises, separate from the home.
Surely you never needed a radio licence for a battery portable radio, wherever you played it. (It was covered by your home licence.) And a car radio runs off the car battery, so it would seem to be equivalent.
I'm not sure of the legality of recording something while you have a
licence, and then cancelling the licence. Would material you'd already
recorded subsequently become illegal to watch? I wonder if anyone has
ever thought about this?
How would you cancel a current licence if you intended to still behave
as though it were valid?
On 10/06/2025 15:49, JNugent wrote:
On 06/06/2025 08:18 AM, Ashley Booth wrote:
JMB99 wrote:
Broadcast radio receiving licences were abolished.
Everyone is permitted to receive broadcast, amateur radio and
Standard Frequency transmissions. Anything else requires a licence
though it is not normally enforced.
There used to be a licence for car radios.
It was only another side of the requirement for a premises to have a licence. The vehicle was treated as premises, separate from the home.
Surely you never needed a radio licence for a battery portable radio, wherever you played it. (It was covered by your home licence.) And a car radio runs off the car battery, so it would seem to be equivalent.
---
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 15:47:01 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
I'm not sure of the legality of recording something while you have a
licence, and then cancelling the licence. Would material you'd already
recorded subsequently become illegal to watch? I wonder if anyone has
ever thought about this?
How would you cancel a current licence if you intended to still behave
as though it were valid?
You wouldn't intend such a thing if you understood that a licence was
needed only to *watch or record* broadcast material, as it says in the
rules, but that you didn't need one to *play* a recording that had
been legally made while a licence was in force.
As I understand it, the licence is for watching or recording
broadcasts, but no mention is made of playing back. The legality of
this doesn't appear to be specified which is why I asked the question.
It would be reasonable to suppose that it should be legal to watch a recording that had been made legally. You don't need a licence to
watch a recording of a rented movie for example; whoever recorded it
must have been legally authorised to do it, so it's a legal recording,
so it's legal for you to play it back. Why would you expect it to be different for any other legally made recording?
Does anybody know if the law clearly says anything specific about
this, because although I'm not a lawyer, I don't think it does.
Car radios were around well before WW2. The transistor radio with self- contained batteries was a much later innovation (the transistor itsel
was only invented in about 1948).
On 10/06/2025 17:49, JNugent wrote:
Car radios were around well before WW2. The transistor radio with
self- contained batteries was a much later innovation (the transistor
itsel was only invented in about 1948).
There were even record players that could be fitted in a car.
Max Demian wrote:
Surely you never needed a radio licence for a battery portable
radio, wherever you played it. (It was covered by your home
licence.) And a car radio runs off the car battery, so it would seem
to be equivalent.
I think the stipulation for battery-powered devices is that it must be
an internal battery.
On 10/06/2025 05:25 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/06/2025 15:49, JNugent wrote:
On 06/06/2025 08:18 AM, Ashley Booth wrote:
JMB99 wrote:
Broadcast radio receiving licences were abolished.
Everyone is permitted to receive broadcast, amateur radio and
Standard Frequency transmissions.-a Anything else requires a licence >>>>> though it is not normally enforced.
There used to be a licence for car radios.
It was only another side of the requirement for a premises to have a
licence. The vehicle was treated as premises, separate from the home.
Surely you never needed a radio licence for a battery portable radio,
wherever you played it. (It was covered by your home licence.) And a car
radio runs off the car battery, so it would seem to be equivalent.
Car radios were around well before WW2. The transistor radio with self- contained batteries was a much later innovation (the transistor itsel
was only invented in about 1948).
On 10/06/2025 17:49, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2025 05:25 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/06/2025 15:49, JNugent wrote:
On 06/06/2025 08:18 AM, Ashley Booth wrote:
JMB99 wrote:
Broadcast radio receiving licences were abolished.
Everyone is permitted to receive broadcast, amateur radio and
Standard Frequency transmissions. Anything else requires a licence >>>>> though it is not normally enforced.
There used to be a licence for car radios.
It was only another side of the requirement for a premises to have a
licence. The vehicle was treated as premises, separate from the home.
Surely you never needed a radio licence for a battery portable radio,
wherever you played it. (It was covered by your home licence.) And a
car radio runs off the car battery, so it would seem to be equivalent.
Car radios were around well before WW2. The transistor radio with self- contained batteries was a much later innovation (the transistor itsel
was only invented in about 1948).
Valve portable radios with internal batteries were around long before transistors. And, before WW2, a lot of radios *had* to be battery
operated as not everyone had mains electricity - I don't know if the batteries were always internal, but I expect they often were, for convenience.
On 11/06/2025 07:43, JMB99 wrote:
On 10/06/2025 17:49, JNugent wrote:
Car radios were around well before WW2. The transistor radio with
self- contained batteries was a much later innovation (the transistor
itsel was only invented in about 1948).
There were even record players that could be fitted in a car.
I've heard of record players in cars being a "thing". But I've always
thought of them in the same vein as chocolate teapots or motorbike
ashtrays. Maybe I'm doing them an injustice...
How did they manage to develop a turntable which could damp out the
jolts of the car as it drove along a road, without the needle jumping
out of the groove? Did they rely on a very heavy tracking weight at the stylus to help it stay in the groove? What effect did that have on sound quality (stylus and moving coils at one end of their range if travel)
and on record life (extra stylus/record friction)? Was the turntable
mounted on a gyro-stabilised platform with very good damping?
It reminds me a 1940/50s film that I once saw where a boy was carrying a wind-up gramophone with a horn, and the record *apparently* still played
as he walked along holding it roughly level but letting it jog around.
As if that's going to happen...
On 10/06/2025 17:49, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2025 05:25 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/06/2025 15:49, JNugent wrote:
On 06/06/2025 08:18 AM, Ashley Booth wrote:
JMB99 wrote:
Broadcast radio receiving licences were abolished.
Everyone is permitted to receive broadcast, amateur radio and
Standard Frequency transmissions. Anything else requires a licence >>>>>> though it is not normally enforced.
There used to be a licence for car radios.
It was only another side of the requirement for a premises to have a
licence. The vehicle was treated as premises, separate from the home.
Surely you never needed a radio licence for a battery portable radio,
wherever you played it. (It was covered by your home licence.) And a car >>> radio runs off the car battery, so it would seem to be equivalent.
Car radios were around well before WW2. The transistor radio with
self- contained batteries was a much later innovation (the transistor
itsel was only invented in about 1948).
Valve portable radios with internal batteries were around long before transistors. And, before WW2, a lot of radios *had* to be battery
operated as not everyone had mains electricity - I don't know if the batteries were always internal, but I expect they often were, for convenience.
Take the house radio on a picnic, with the aerial slung from the trees,
and an earthing rod buried in the ground. That would presumably be
covered by your home radio licence.
On 04/06/2025 06:11 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
You wouldn't watch your own off-air video-recording (VHS / DVD-R / PVR
/ Whatever) via internet streaming, would you?
You might, if you were away from home and wanted to watch something
unavailable locally to where you are.
Sounds like a very clever and probably next to non-existent, case.
Easier to download to an iPad before leaving.