|
|
TV license for mobile phones
This country gets worse, have you ever5 heard anything so flaming stupid. I am so glad my mobile is just a standard phone, that I make and recieve calls on and nothing else. http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/news.php?...ass=193&id=578 |
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:51:46 -0000, ad
wrote: This country gets worse, have you ever5 heard anything so flaming stupid. I am so glad my mobile is just a standard phone, that I make and recieve calls on and nothing else. And how many people do you think that will affect? Don't you have a TV licence? -- Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text. Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question. |
"ad" wrote in message k... This country gets worse, have you ever5 heard anything so flaming stupid. I am so glad my mobile is just a standard phone, that I make and recieve calls on and nothing else. http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/news.php?...ass=193&id=578 seems to me quite logical -;) roman |
"ad" wrote in message k... This country gets worse, have you ever5 heard anything so flaming stupid. I am so glad my mobile is just a standard phone, that I make and recieve calls on and nothing else. http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/news.php?...ass=193&id=578 Why should a PC be the only thing excempt for "non-realtime" receipt of programs? Why should you need a licence if you where daft enough to watch a video on demand film by phone on it's tiny little screen? |
"Andrew" [email protected] wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:51:46 -0000, ad wrote: This country gets worse, have you ever5 heard anything so flaming stupid. I am so glad my mobile is just a standard phone, that I make and recieve calls on and nothing else. And how many people do you think that will affect? Don't you have a TV licence? I would think most people would be covered in the same way "portable" TV's are covered by the home's main TV license. Companies who supply their staff with phones would have to address it. That's easy enough - get managers to ignore the advice of their young techno IT staff and supply the cheapest phones possible on the cheapest network! |
Thus spaketh ad:
This country gets worse, have you ever5 heard anything so flaming stupid. I am so glad my mobile is just a standard phone, that I make and recieve calls on and nothing else. http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/news.php?...ass=193&id=578 Germany are doing the same too, and with PCs. |
ad said the following on 19/01/2005 09:51:
This country gets worse, have you ever5 heard anything so flaming stupid. I am so glad my mobile is just a standard phone, that I make and recieve calls on and nothing else. http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/news.php?...ass=193&id=578 Would any "Portable devices capable of displaying digital television services" actually be able to do that in the country or will we start seeing people with DAT75's mounted on their heads.... Kev |
In article ,
[email protected] says... And how many people do you think that will affect? Don't you have a TV licence? You be surprised how many people have not got a T.V and yet may have a phoneable to do these functions. I got a T.V license, but even if I did not, it would not affect me anyway, as I just got a normal mobile. |
|
"Andrew" [email protected] wrote in message
... On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:51:46 -0000, ad wrote: This country gets worse, have you ever5 heard anything so flaming stupid. I am so glad my mobile is just a standard phone, that I make and recieve calls on and nothing else. And how many people do you think that will affect? Students living away from home; single people living in bedsits; people living in residential homes with a communal TV. -- Max Demian |
"Mike Henry" wrote in message ... In , ad wrote: This country gets worse, http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/news.php?...ass=193&id=578 Indeed it does get worse as far as education goes - despite linking to the article, you still managed to use the American spelling of "licence" in your subject :-( There was a story in one of the papers last week which stated that only 1 in 5 people actually watch BBC. When The analouge switch off eventually comes, BBC should be be encrypted right across the board and if people want it, they can pay for it. Personally I couldnt give two stuffs about BBC. I am on Sky Family Pack and all I watch is the music channels. I also watch 19E and 13E, again for the music channels. Bring that into power and see how long the BBC stays afloat, unless of course the government bails them right out by giving them the money that we'll soon be paying for opening our front doors. Then again, I dont think anyone could disagree with the point that this government are taxing everything and are setting up silly bloody standards for this that and the other, telling us what we can and cant do, but we just sit and put up with it all, so really we cant complain. Going back on topic again, and as someone already stated, if people are going to be stupid enough to want to watch Richard and Judy or whatever on a 2" screen, they deserve to pay £110/year Andty |
|
In article , {$usenet-
says... http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/news.php?...ass=193&id=578 Indeed it does get worse as far as education goes - despite linking to the article, you still managed to use the American spelling of "licence" in your subject :-( Typical pick me up on spelling, because you can not think of what to say about the article. As for the spelling, maybe it is because I send emails to a lot of Americans, so you get to their way of spelling |
ad wrote:
In article , {$usenet- says... http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/news.php?...ass=193&id=578 Indeed it does get worse as far as education goes - despite linking to the article, you still managed to use the American spelling of "licence" in your subject :-( Typical pick me up on spelling, because you can not think of what to say about the article. As for the spelling, maybe it is because I send emails to a lot of Americans, so you get to their way of spelling Dimwit |
ad ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying : Maybe so, but it is not the point. The way it is goiong we will be taxed for bloody breathing. What's changed? Nothing. You have to have - and have always had to have - a licence for any equipment capable of receiving a TV signal. Not one thing has changed - apart from the technology. |
ad ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying : I agree, the T.V license should be for the BBC crap only and that is it, you should not have to pay it if you do not watch the BBC. And they police that.... how? |
Andrew Scott ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying : There was a story in one of the papers last week which stated that only 1 in 5 people actually watch BBC. Daily "We Hate The BBC" Telegraph? |
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:24:40 -0000, ad
wrote: And how many people do you think that will affect? Don't you have a TV licence? You be surprised how many people have not got a T.V and yet may have a phoneable to do these functions. I would be surprised if they numbered over 100. -- Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text. Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question. |
In article ,
says... ad said the following on 19/01/2005 09:51: This country gets worse, have you ever5 heard anything so flaming stupid. I am so glad my mobile is just a standard phone, that I make and recieve calls on and nothing else. http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/news.php?...ass=193&id=578 Would any "Portable devices capable of displaying digital television services" actually be able to do that in the country or will we start seeing people with DAT75's mounted on their heads.... It is just silly, you got a small screen and yet you are expected tpo pay for a license to use it. |
In article ,
[email protected] says... On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:24:40 -0000, ad You be surprised how many people have not got a T.V and yet may have a phoneable to do these functions. I would be surprised if they numbered over 100. Maybe so, but it is still 100 people. |
|
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:25:30 -0000, ad
wrote: It is just silly, you got a small screen and yet you are expected tpo pay for a license to use it. So people with a 14" TV should pay less than someone with a 42" TV? Do you ever think through your messages before you hit send? -- Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text. Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question. |
|
|
"ad" wrote in message k... In article , says... What's changed? Nothing. You have to have - and have always had to have - a licence for any equipment capable of receiving a TV signal. Not one thing has changed - apart from the technology. But it is not a T.V signal as such, this service is over a phone network. The sooner this government comes to is senses and get rid of this T.V tax the better. That's rather a different point isn't it? Personally, I'm in favour of the licence but if you're not it doesn't matter how fairly it's implemented. This is the same argument people use to hate speed cameras. I think speed limits should be raised - especially on motorways - but it's never a bad idea to enforce the law. If you don't like the law get it changed. |
"ad" wrote in message k... In article , says... What's changed? Nothing. You have to have - and have always had to have - a licence for any equipment capable of receiving a TV signal. Not one thing has changed - apart from the technology. But it is not a T.V signal as such, this service is over a phone network. The sooner this government comes to is senses and get rid of this T.V tax the better. That's rather a different point isn't it? Personally, I'm in favour of the licence but if you're not it doesn't matter how fairly it's implemented. This is the same argument people use to hate speed cameras. I think speed limits should be raised - especially on motorways - but it's never a bad idea to enforce the law. If you don't like the law get it changed. |
Max Demian said the following on 19/01/2005 18:52:
Students living away from home; Who are allowed to use a TV running off it's own internal batteries provided their parents have a licence. (Although i assume charging it may be classed as running off mains power, unless the battery had to be placed in a seperate charger for charging?) Kev |
"Adrian" wrote in message
. 1.4... Andrew Scott ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : There was a story in one of the papers last week which stated that only 1 in 5 people actually watch BBC. Daily "We Hate The BBC" Telegraph? The Sun? (prop. R. Murdoch) The Times? (prop. R. Murdoch) Peter |
"ad" wrote...
says... There was a story in one of the papers last week which stated that only 1 in 5 people actually watch BBC. When The analouge switch off eventually comes, That do not surprise me, since I have had Sky, I have not really watched BBC, apart from Little Britain, I did not watch BBC much, before I had Sky. Fair enough, but have you stopped to consider what this will do to your brain? It seems to be fairly marginal already. Matti |
ad ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying : I agree, the T.V license should be for the BBC crap only and that is it, you should not have to pay it if you do not watch the BBC. And they police that.... how? In this day and age it is simple to do. you can have an encoder for digital and analouge, if you pay they will allow you to watch BBC channels, if you do not, then it is switched off. *Roughly* how long do you think it would take for it to be cracked? And who's going to pay for it? Do you think ITV, C4 and C5 cost you nothing? I've got some news for you. They cost you a LOT more every year than the BBC. Let's assume that 100% of households in the UK have a colour TV licence. That's 21.66m households in the 2001 census. £121 per household = total maximum possible licence revenue of £2.6bn. Nice little sum, isn't it? No. It's actually fairly insignificant. 55% of UK households have digital TV. The average annual spend is around £250 per household in subscriptions. Twice the TV licence. Total revenue? £3bn. ITV PLC (Granada and Carlton alone) have turnover of around £2bn per year. Then there's all the other franchises. Channel 4 has turnover of £770 million per year, of which £690m is ad revenue. C5 has turnover of "airtime sales" of £250m - for a channel that gets 6.5% of viewers. Channel Five's advertising alone costs the 80% of the population with access £15 per year per household. BSkyB turn over £3.7bn per year - of which £13million went to one director, Tony Ball as a bonus payment. In one year. On top of his £700k salary. And £125k into his pension. Nice. Then there's NTL and Telewest. I can't be arsed to look them up, but somebody's got to pay for all that interest on their huge debts. Then there's the cost of actually making the ads. Have you ever been on the set of a TV ad? I have. There was a short series of adverts for a certain well-known beer brand a couple of years ago.. One of my cars was used for a couple of *VERY* quick scenes. Blink and miss it. I was paid a grand for that. They used a number of other vehicles, which didn't even make it into the final ads - but the owners still got paid. The filming went on for eight days, dawn to dusk, with a crew of around 50 or 60 people on set. Plus, of course, all the work either end of the actual filming. What do you think that must have cost? An absolute *fortune* by the time the actual brewery got invoiced for the concept, production, air time. For approximately 90 seconds of aired material, repeated over the course of about a month. Now - where do you think all that advertising money comes from? Have you ever noticed cornflakes being differentially priced when you go into Tesco? One price for those that watch commercial TV, and a lower price for those who don't? No, nor me. The BBC is actually bloody good value, and they ought to be congratulated for managing to provide so much high quality output for such a low price. Even better, it's a *visible* price, unlike the price of commercial TV. |
Peter Goodland ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying : There was a story in one of the papers last week which stated that only 1 in 5 people actually watch BBC. Daily "We Hate The BBC" Telegraph? The Sun? (prop. R. Murdoch) The Times? (prop. R. Murdoch) Gosh, and I thought *I* was cynical... Do you think there's a conflict of interest there? Remind me which paper started the "Jerry Springer" silliness off? Was it the Sun? Now - which TV channel *sponsors* the theatre show of Jerry Springer the Opera? Could it be Sky? Owned by...? |
In article , ad
writes In article , says... What's changed? Nothing. You have to have - and have always had to have - a licence for any equipment capable of receiving a TV signal. Not one thing has changed - apart from the technology. But it is not a T.V signal as such, this service is over a phone network. The sooner this government comes to is senses and get rid of this T.V tax the better. It is as much a TV signal as DTV or Sky - and you still need a license for those. The means of delivery is irrelevant - it is a broadcast signal that the phone network is redistributing. How they do that is irrelevant - just as a communal aerial on a block of flats still requires the residents to obtain a separate TV license for each dwelling. Grow up - the imposition of the TV license is no different from a car tax or many other taxes. The unique issue of the TV license is its hypothecation, not its collection or imposition. Even if the BBC folded tomorrow, you would still be taxed to operate a TV and the money would be spent elsewhere, probably promoting Two Jags to Four. The real issue isn't why the BBC are funded by a hypothecated tax, but why other organisations, which ought to have an obligation to be independent of government interference and political pressure, are not. When the police arrest Tony B Liar's son for being drunk and disorderly I want to see him prosecuted under the full remit of the law, not just given a lift home in the back of a squad car because daddy can influence the Chief Constable's budget next year and he wouldn't want to upset him! Similarly, when the government impose and unjust tax or invite human rights abusers and/or war mongering Heads of State here for visits, the police should not be put under pressure to break up or block peaceful protests - or incite them to become violent so that they then justify intervention. -- Kennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) |
A TV which is powered by its own internal batteries DOES NOT need a license.
I guess most mobile phones would fall into that category. "ad" wrote in message k... This country gets worse, have you ever5 heard anything so flaming stupid. I am so glad my mobile is just a standard phone, that I make and recieve calls on and nothing else. http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/news.php?...ass=193&id=578 |
I just cant see it - are they going to have the TVLA turning up at
peoples houses and demanding to see their mobile phone? Right now if you buy a TV/STB/VCR or ay other equipemtn capable of receiving TV broadcasts you have to supply your postcode yes? Does this mean we will have to start supplying our postcode when we buy a mobile phone too?? Why don't the government just come and install cameras into everybody's houses and dictate when they can sit down and stand up?? Sorry but I'm getting tired quickly the way we as a country are being treated. We complain about on screen logos on channels and we get told "it's so you don't forget what channel you are watching" We get told smoking is bad for you - then they go a step further and start banning it in public places in the hope it will FORCE people to stop. We get told too much salt is bad for you and then all of a sudden everything contains "less salt" - thank you very much but I would like to make my own decision about things - not have them forced onto me!! I could of sworn that we didnt used to live in a dictatorship! |
"Adrian" wrote in message
. 1.4... ad ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : I agree, the T.V license should be for the BBC crap only and that is it, you should not have to pay it if you do not watch the BBC. And they police that.... how? In this day and age it is simple to do. you can have an encoder for digital and analouge, if you pay they will allow you to watch BBC channels, if you do not, then it is switched off. *Roughly* how long do you think it would take for it to be cracked? And who's going to pay for it? Do you think ITV, C4 and C5 cost you nothing? I've got some news for you. They cost you a LOT more every year than the BBC. Let's assume that 100% of households in the UK have a colour TV licence. That's 21.66m households in the 2001 census. £121 per household = total maximum possible licence revenue of £2.6bn. Nice little sum, isn't it? An absolutely staggering amount, most of which goes on utter dross. No. It's actually fairly insignificant. 55% of UK households have digital TV. The average annual spend is around £250 per household in subscriptions. Twice the TV licence. Total revenue? £3bn. ITV PLC (Granada and Carlton alone) have turnover of around £2bn per year. Then there's all the other franchises. Channel 4 has turnover of £770 million per year, of which £690m is ad revenue. C5 has turnover of "airtime sales" of £250m - for a channel that gets 6.5% of viewers. Good for them. No company is forced to advertise on C5, no company's customers are forced to by products they do not think are good value. Let's hope that C4 continues to reduce the public subsidy. Channel Five's advertising alone costs the 80% of the population with access £15 per year per household. Spent on products that they want to buy at a price they are willing to spend. This cannot be said of those who have to support the BBC when they use alternative television products. BSkyB turn over £3.7bn per year - of which £13million went to one director, Tony Ball as a bonus payment. In one year. On top of his £700k salary. And £125k into his pension. Nice. Then there's NTL and Telewest. I can't be arsed to look them up, but somebody's got to pay for all that interest on their huge debts. Then there's the cost of actually making the ads. Have you ever been on the set of a TV ad? Yes. I have. There was a short series of adverts for a certain well-known beer brand a couple of years ago.. One of my cars was used for a couple of *VERY* quick scenes. Blink and miss it. I was paid a grand for that. They used a number of other vehicles, which didn't even make it into the final ads - but the owners still got paid. The filming went on for eight days, dawn to dusk, with a crew of around 50 or 60 people on set. Plus, of course, all the work either end of the actual filming. What do you think that must have cost? An absolute *fortune* by the time the actual brewery got invoiced for the concept, production, air time. For approximately 90 seconds of aired material, repeated over the course of about a month. Now - where do you think all that advertising money comes from? Companies that believe a certain amount of TV advertising is the most cost-efficient way of marketing their products. Do you think that if this avenue of advertising wasn't open to them that the money "saved" would be taken off the price of their products? Would you prefer another couple of hundredweight of junk mail on your doorstep every month; or horizon to horizon billboards? If companies have made the right decision about using TV advertising then they have made the most efficient use of their marketing budget. If TV advertising just increases the cost of goods, then customers will surely buy (for less) alternative products that have been produced by companies that do not advertise on TV. Have you ever noticed cornflakes being differentially priced when you go into Tesco? One price for those that watch commercial TV, and a lower price for those who don't? No, nor me. Nor me, why would anyone expect that? Nor have I seen people who buy muesli forced to subsidise those who buy cornflakes. Shame TV doesn't have a similar pricing model. The BBC is actually bloody good value, and they ought to be congratulated for managing to provide so much high quality output for such a low price. That's a matter of opinion. I just wish those who share it would also be willing to share the cost of the BBC. IMO, I think that £125 a year (twelve month-ends to be more precise) is an extortionate proce to pay for the BBC's products. But if I watch C4, I have no choice in the matter. Even better, it's a *visible* price, unlike the price of commercial TV. Regards, Arfur |
|
|
In article ,
[email protected] says... It is just silly, you got a small screen and yet you are expected tpo pay for a license to use it. So people with a 14" TV should pay less than someone with a 42" TV? Do you ever think through your messages before you hit send? Oh come on, you can still see almost everything on a 14inch screen, you need a magnifying glass to see some of the screens on these mobiles. I must admit, that when I had my 14 inch T.v, I did not pay a licence fee. |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com