Anachronistic?

Nomad had intended that his next post would be a detailed examination of the letter of the law. For reasons he does not wish to allude to, this project will now be postponed until later in the year. Instead he is going to review various technical issues for the next few weeks.

Before moving on though, Nomad cant help poking fun at the law. It is such an easy target. What do you make of this:

In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), "television receiver" means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.

The law thinks you can send television signals by "Wireless Telegraphy" does it? Imagine a poor radio operator furiously operating his morse key while manually running a ruler down each frame of the picture. With a really good operator you might possibly get a rate of one frame an hour.

During the 1940s Wireless Telegraphy (W/T) meant using morse code to send signals by radio. This was in distinction to the other system in use at the time, which was Radio Telephony (R/T) meaning the use of voice to send signals by radio. Which information is unlikely to be of any use to you unless you are watching a film dating from the period. Astonishingly the law is making definitions using langauge which nobody has used for about 50 years and which even then meant something different.. Not surprisingly then that it is struggling to cope with current developments in technology.

Incidentally, if you should get dragged into court do not mention this point. To the English legal mind "Wireless Telegraphy" refers to any use of a radio signal. The judge may not take kindly to the idea that the legal system has not moved on since the 1930s. How do you think the law might describe other technologies though? What about "gramophone transmission" (audio podcasting), or possibly "Telegraphised Movie Picture" (video podcasting).