London Banter - Conflict of Oyster Cards

London Banter (https://www.londonbanter.co.uk/forum.php)

- London Transport (https://www.londonbanter.co.uk/london-transport/)

- - Conflict of Oyster Cards (https://www.londonbanter.co.uk/london-transport/10376-conflict-oyster-cards.html)

Conflict of Oyster Cards

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:12:45 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 04:01:07 -0800 (PST) someone who may be Mizter T
wrote this:-

The Telegraphy Act 1967 requires retailers to collect the address of
purchasers of television receiving equipment and pass it on to the
television licensing authority - under the law a sale cannot be
effected if this doesn't happen.

They have to collect an address. However, the public are under no
obligation to provide their own address

They are if they don't want to find themselves in court:-
[Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967]
"5 Offences and enforcement
(1)Any person whoâ€”
(a)without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with, or with any notice
given under, any of the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act;
or
(b)in purported compliance therewithâ€”
(i)knowingly or recklessly furnishes any information which is false in
a material particular; or
(ii)makes or causes to be made or knowingly allows to be made any
record which he knows to be false in a material particular,

shall be guilty of an offence under the principal Act."

ITYF the offence is formed not by the failure to provide the true
address but by the deliberate giving of a false address.

As a back up there are also the Common Law offences covering fraud and
theft in Scotland or deception offences under the Fraud Act in England
and Wales.

and given that if they do
they are highly likely to be spammed it is foolish to give one's own
address.

If the name and address are collected for the purposes of complying
with the WTA then a shop cannot divert that information for its own
purposes.

Conflict of Oyster Cards

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:55:34 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:35:08 +0000 someone who may be Ivor The
Engine wrote this:-

Extended warranty? If someone is coming to repair your TV, it helps
if they know where it is.

If the customer finds something wrong with their set then they
contact the manufacturer (or shop if it was taken out with them). No
need for the shop to collect personal information, which they will
use to spam people.

If the name and/or address are incorrect it might kill the warranty
because there is no evidence that the current owner is the person who
bought the television.

Conflict of Oyster Cards

On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 05:08:15 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:

On Feb 7, 11:38*am, Charlie Hulme
wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

On Feb 7, 12:36 am, David Hansen
wrote:

On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 21:43:54 -0000 someone who may be "Yokel"
wrote this:-

Argos does as well, resulting
in me having to fill in a form at the counter, not on their pay terminal,
when I bought a TV from them.
Why fill in a form with an address when buying a television?

Telegraphy Act of 1967 (as amended).

I had to fill in such a form when I bought a video recorder from
Tesco.

Does the law also apply to to USB Freeview gadgets, I wonder?

I think it does, yes - the law covers all 'television receiving
apparatus' (or some such) - not saying that retailers necessarily
abide by this though.

But of course the whole issue is becoming far less clear than it once
was - a computer and indeed other internet connected devices can be
used to get television streamed 'live' (the BBC streams BBC1 and 2 and
the news channel), for which a licence fee is a technical requirement.

It isn't "technical" - a receiving licence is required to use
apparatus to watch anything that is being currently broadcast over the
air but not for anything which is recorded (in that case only the
originator of a broadcast still requires a licence). No receiving
licence is required if equipment capable of doing so is not installed
or used for that purpose. In the case of a computer the mere
capability (which won't be there if there is no aerial) is not enough
although the TVLRO in the past would possibly not have hesitated to
claim otherwise in court.

However the details of people buying computers or other such devices
aren't passed to TV Licensing. Regardless of other issues re the
licence, the simple question of how applicable and relevant it will be
over time, given the advancing and merging of technologies, has to be
asked. Of course I rather suspect that no government of the future is
going to be wildly keen to open the pandora's box that is television
licensing and BBC funding.

Conflict of Oyster Cards

On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 17:05:15 -0000, "Tim Fenton"
wrote:

"Ivor The Engine" wrote in message
.. .

So no practical use for a tourist, are strippenkarts still valid on the
trams?

They were still valid in central Amsterdam last month for trams &
buses - I think you may have to have the OV card for metro (didn't use
it).

The Strippenkaart ceased to be valid for the Amsterdam Metro last September.
I used a day ticket while there later that month, so haven't yet experienced
the new system.

Indeed. It was a sudden encounter with the closed gates that got me to
sort out an OVkaart - I'm there often enough and can claim the
deposit. HTM trams were "turned on" to OV on 1 Feb but strippenkaarten
are still valid.

I must grab and scan a journey history from a GVB machine, those are
delightfully unhelpful. The Oyster JH is a model of clarity in
comparison, even with its Entry 4.00 Exit 3.00 confusion. On the OV
you have to know the "tuig nummer" - for example the NS trains show up
as a 4 digit code with no hint of what you rode.

--
Old anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke
So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com

Conflict of Oyster Cards

On Feb 7, 10:57*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Sat, 6 Feb 2010, Mizter T wrote:
There was one company I had recent online dealings with that didn't have
any sort of London option at all - I'm quite sure a good many Londoners
wouldn't be too sure of their 'historic' county, for example how many
know exactly where ye olde dividing line between Kent and Surrey lay?
I've got a broad idea, but that's only coz I've looked it up on maps of
yore.

Given that the post office doesn't pay any attention to the county,
couldn't you fill in whatever you liked?

You could - it'd be an interesting test of the extent to which Royal
Mail doesn't pay *any* attention whatsoever to a county that's given
as part of an address! I dare say one might find that helpful
interventions might be made... one can test it for the price of a few
stamps, and perhaps some strange looks from your postman, I suppose
(that said mass produced mail from mailing houses might be treated
with more tolerance for absurd address elements than evidently
personally addressed mail). There's still a good number of postman who
do give a damn.

Conflict of Oyster Cards

On Feb 7, 11:03*pm, (Paul Cummins) wrote:

In article ,
(Graeme) wrote:
However it is not clever for others on this group to boast about
not paying their licence fee. *Given I derive part of my income from
it I have every incentive to shop them to the cops.

OK. I have a TV, and I do not pay for a TV Licence. I am satisfied that a
licence I *do* hold covers me. Feel free to let the police know.

However, I'm pretty sure they are uninterested in the matter...

Intrigued... gun licence?

(Or more likely I suppose, you're not a viewer of broadcast
television.)

Conflict of Oyster Cards

On Feb 7, 11:27*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 05:08:15 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:

On Feb 7, 11:38*am, Charlie Hulme
wrote:
[snip]
Does the law also apply to to USB Freeview gadgets, I wonder?

I think it does, yes - the law covers all 'television receiving
apparatus' (or some such) - not saying that retailers necessarily
abide by this though.

But of course the whole issue is becoming far less clear than it once
was - a computer and indeed other internet connected devices can be
used to get television streamed 'live' (the BBC streams BBC1 and 2 and
the news channel), for which a licence fee is a technical requirement.

It isn't "technical" - a receiving licence is required to use
apparatus to watch anything that is being currently broadcast over the
air but not for anything which is recorded (in that case only the
originator of a broadcast still requires a licence). No receiving
licence is required if equipment capable of doing so is not installed
or used for that purpose. In the case of a computer the mere
capability (which won't be there if there is no aerial) is not enough
although the TVLRO in the past would possibly not have hesitated to
claim otherwise in court.

An computer does have the capability to enable viewing of broadcast
television without an aerial, so long as it is internet connected -
the BBC themselves stream three of their UK television channels via
their own website.

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcone/watchlive/, replete with the note in
the bottom right hand corner that states "Don't forget - to watch TV
online as it's being broadcast, you still need a TV Licence."

TV Licensing do not however require computer retailers to gather and
pass on information about the purchasers addresses to them.

My point is that the convergence of technology makes this all rather
less clear cut - and there's a good number of people who don't have
conventional televisions but who nonetheless watch television nowadays
- if it's all 'watch again' stuff on iPlayer, 4oD and the like, no
problem, but if it's a live ('as broadcast') TV stream then a TV
Licence is required.

And if three BBC channels aren't enough, throw "TVCatchup" into the
arena and then one can access live streams of over 50 UK channels -
see http://www.tvcatchup.com/ and also the wikipedia article on the
service here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TVCatchup.

The world is more complicated than it once was.

Conflict of Oyster Cards

On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 16:43:29 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:

On Feb 7, 10:57*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Sat, 6 Feb 2010, Mizter T wrote:
There was one company I had recent online dealings with that didn't have
any sort of London option at all - I'm quite sure a good many Londoners
wouldn't be too sure of their 'historic' county, for example how many
know exactly where ye olde dividing line between Kent and Surrey lay?
I've got a broad idea, but that's only coz I've looked it up on maps of
yore.

Given that the post office doesn't pay any attention to the county,
couldn't you fill in whatever you liked?

You could - it'd be an interesting test of the extent to which Royal
Mail doesn't pay *any* attention whatsoever to a county that's given
as part of an address! I dare say one might find that helpful
interventions might be made... one can test it for the price of a few
stamps, and perhaps some strange looks from your postman, I suppose
(that said mass produced mail from mailing houses might be treated
with more tolerance for absurd address elements than evidently
personally addressed mail). There's still a good number of postman who
do give a damn.

Putting the wrong county could have an affect if the OCR fails to
recognise the postcode but reads enough of the rest to produce a
unique match to an existing address which is not the intended
destination but not enough to exclude wrong addresses which would have
been ignored if the correct county was shown.

Conflict of Oyster Cards

On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:06:19 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:

On Feb 7, 11:27*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 05:08:15 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:

On Feb 7, 11:38*am, Charlie Hulme
wrote:
[snip]
Does the law also apply to to USB Freeview gadgets, I wonder?

I think it does, yes - the law covers all 'television receiving
apparatus' (or some such) - not saying that retailers necessarily
abide by this though.

But of course the whole issue is becoming far less clear than it once
was - a computer and indeed other internet connected devices can be
used to get television streamed 'live' (the BBC streams BBC1 and 2 and
the news channel), for which a licence fee is a technical requirement.

It isn't "technical" - a receiving licence is required to use
apparatus to watch anything that is being currently broadcast over the
air but not for anything which is recorded (in that case only the
originator of a broadcast still requires a licence). No receiving
licence is required if equipment capable of doing so is not installed
or used for that purpose. In the case of a computer the mere
capability (which won't be there if there is no aerial) is not enough
although the TVLRO in the past would possibly not have hesitated to
claim otherwise in court.

An computer does have the capability to enable viewing of broadcast
television without an aerial, so long as it is internet connected -
the BBC themselves stream three of their UK television channels via
their own website.

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcone/watchlive/, replete with the note in
the bottom right hand corner that states "Don't forget - to watch TV
online as it's being broadcast, you still need a TV Licence."

Capability is not enough to require licensing otherwise it would be
necessary to obtain a licence for a portable television used as a
computer or games monitor.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ15/
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-i...for-your-home/
(note "as they're being shown on TV.")

TV Licensing do not however require computer retailers to gather and
pass on information about the purchasers addresses to them.

The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967 (not the licensing people) makes that
requirement if the equipment retailed constitutes a "television set"
(apparatus designed primarily for the purpose of receiving and
exhibiting television programmes) where "primarily" will usually kick
the requirement into touch. OTOH retailers of computer-based home
entertainment systems seem to qualify as "television dealers" under
the Act if they aren't already dealing with televisions which I
suspect most are likely to. Moving on to e.g. Dixons and similar who
are unlikely not to be "television dealers" I can't see how the Act
can be applied (WRT collecting addresses) at all to television cards
or systems sold without a monitor and even a computer+monitor+card
(not sold as an entertainment system) seems to fail the test for being
a "television set".

My point is that the convergence of technology makes this all rather
less clear cut - and there's a good number of people who don't have
conventional televisions but who nonetheless watch television nowadays
- if it's all 'watch again' stuff on iPlayer, 4oD and the like, no
problem, but if it's a live ('as broadcast') TV stream then a TV
Licence is required.

And if three BBC channels aren't enough, throw "TVCatchup" into the
arena and then one can access live streams of over 50 UK channels -
see http://www.tvcatchup.com/ and also the wikipedia article on the
service here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TVCatchup.

It seems to be a Mauritius-registered company which immediately raises
the question of why they are operating off-shore.

The world is more complicated than it once was.