Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28809 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2001 11:36:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO warrior-inbound.services.quay.plus.net) (212.159.14.227) by excalibur.plus.net with SMTP; 31 Aug 2001 11:36:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 7044 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2001 11:35:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by warrior with SMTP; 31 Aug 2001 11:35:02 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.16 #2) id 15cmRt-0007bf-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:26:57 +0100 Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com ([194.73.73.81]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #2) id 15cmRr-0007ba-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:26:56 +0100 Received: from [213.122.230.4] (helo=default) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15cmR8-00030z-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:26:10 +0100 Message-ID: <001401c1320f$74998180$04e67ad5@default> From: "Alan Melia" To: "LF-Group" Subject: LF: UK TV Interference on 136 Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:22:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: Hi All, this is mainly of interest to UK amateurs. Everyone quoted the EMC regulations when we talk about interference.....BUT if you look at your TV licence , on the reverse side at the lower LHS is says " You must not cause any interference to any other radio or television reception with your television receiving apparatur. " Thus all these radiating TVs are causing their owner to break their TV licence conditions!! Note it does not say "UNDUE interference" as it used to on licences in the 1960s, nor does it mention BROADCAST repception. I think that recourse should be made to the dealers in these cases and not to the RA or the conditions will be rapidly removed to take away the loophole. This would also be valid in Bob's case, Steve, as even if running a nonterestrial system you must have a licence. I suggest Bob could employ this against NTL. Cheers de Alan G3NYK Alan.Melia@btinternet.com