3 ms·
It's a tax, it's certainly fine to disagree with it but it's simply a tax. And you're surely aware that signals don't work like that.
by IanCal 3y ago
It's a tax, it's certainly fine to disagree with it but it's simply a tax. And you're surely aware that signals don't work like that.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- goles 3y agoI think Ps point is that the onus for payment is on the distributor when the product is broadcast universily, but the receipt of it is the crime. And funnily enough, the signals do work like that.[1] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Caroline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Caroline
- IanCal 3y agoReceipt of the signals is not a crime though. Using them to watch live TV without a license is. And my point is that the answer to "why do I have to pay if I don't use..." is that it's a tax. It's not a commercial decision it's taxing something to raise revenue to be spent on a public service. > And funnily enough, the signals do work like that.[1] I don't understand how that's related to making a signal of that wavelength miss a house.