Please to explain? - TV licences
 

Extract from the TV licensing website:

OK, a PC with a broadcast card is as far as I am aware a PC with a TV receiver built in so I can see why that would require a licence.

But, and apologies if someone else has already brought this up, this BBC story

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5074406.stm

says:

Sounds like another cash cow to me, when is a TV broadcast not a TV broadcast? With broadband you don't have a TV receiver or any other device that uses the airways. Am I being picky? Would the same rules apply if some non TV company were to webcast a match using exclusive material from their own cameras?

I'd love to ditch my TV completely if only to wind up the TV licensing agency who it appears cannot conceive that any household could possibly not have a TV and that anyone who claimed so must be cheating.

Re: Please to explain? - TV licences
 

I'm sure LynW will be along shortly to add her advice to this. She has not TV and worked for those evil money grabbers ;) (revenue & customs, excuse me)

I seem to remember from my years in the trade that the wording used to be that you needed a TV licence for any piece of equipment capable of receiving TV pictures, so in that case you would still need a licence to watch over broadband.

Someone i knew of got done for only having a black & white licence, her TV was black & white but her video was capable of recording colour pictures even though she couldn't see it.

Prey tell, why do the blind only get a miserly discount?
And why have a tele? Radio would be fine and cheaper!