TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: British TV License (was America the Worst For Cell Rates

Re: British TV License (was America the Worst For Cell Rates

David Clayton (
Tue, 01 Feb 2005 12:30:16 +1100

On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 10:12 -0800, Joseph wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 16:54:02 -0500, Tony P.
> <> wrote:

>> In article <>,
>> says:

>>>> So, if I am in the UK with an NTSC TV set (or just a monitor)
>>>> connected to a satellite receiver that receives a non-UK satellite
>>>> service, I wouldn't have to pay the tax?

>>> Yes you would. You own a TV set capable of receiving BBC. Regardless
>>> of whether it's NTSC or otherwise it makes no difference these days
>>> with modern TV sets.

>> I beg to differ. NTSC and PAL are two different animals. The UK and it's
>> more recent colonies use PAL if I'm not mistaken. North and South
>> America use NTSC.

> It's *generally" true that NTSC is used in the Americas. It's also
> generally true that NTSC is used in the far east with the major
> exception being the PRC (China.)

> (world television standards)

I think the original point many have been to say that a lot of PAL TV
sets these days seem to have in-built NTSC capability, and I would
imagine that a lot sold in NTSC markets also have PAL.


David Clayton, e-mail:
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
(Remove the "XYZ." to reply)

Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you
down to their level then beat you with experience.

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Fred Atkinson: "Re: $47,000 per Line Installation Cost"
Go to Previous message: Tony P.: "Re: Who Does DA For Cox Communications?"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page