"Ivan" wrote in message
...

After terrestrial digitisation it would-be the easiest thing in the world
to
incorporate encryption, so perhaps it's something we should at least be
thinking about.

It's not the "easiest thing in the world" at all now that so many people
have Freeview boxes and PVRs without slots for the cards. (Reputedly this is
why the BBC has been so keen to promote Freeview - so as to ensure the
continuation of the licence fee.)

--
Max Demian

"Ad C" wrote in message
k...
In article
s.net,
LID says...
you said
I wish that was true.
/...


I don't, but then if you want wall-to-wall adverts, were the
programmes are tailored to what advertisers want their audience
to be
then so be....



There was a time when I thought it was worth paying for the
license, but
the BBC have now lost the plot and are as bad as ITV.

Yes, I agree, but as long as they are funded from (an indirect tax)
that situation is reversible - it was only some idiot [1] within the
Corporation and his 'internal market' and the unneeded ratings war
with ITV / Ch4 that caused the problem.

[1] trouble is, he know seems to have access of Blair, talk about a
double whammy.... :~(


I think once analogue is switched off, then the BBc should be
subscription. People with Sky may not even watch the BBc and yet
they
have to pay to support it.


You mean they CHOOSE not to watch. If subscription was on a par with
the current licence fee it would be a neutral change (cost wise), and
what would that subscription cover - how would the BBC's radio (and
other non television services be funded?

"Ivan" wrote in message
...

snip

After terrestrial digitisation it would-be the easiest thing in the
world to
incorporate encryption, so perhaps it's something we should at
least be
thinking about.


Only if you want nueted content, out goes anything other than
'populist' programming, the current ITV1 channel is an example of
this (IMO)....

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:20:09 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article . com,
wrote:
Said to me today:
"Some of them on here they grumble about it, having to pay £50 for a
box. But what they don't seem to realise is, they'll save that over and
over again because they won't have to buy the license any more."

The broadcasters have a serious communication problem if they've allowed
their customers to think that.

But then... the BBC are planning to put their broacasts on the internet,
arent't they? What are we to assume about the legality of watching those
with or without a licence, or even *owning a computer*? The current
licence is apparently required if you have equipment installed for the use
of receiving broadcasts, which would by that definition include any
computer connected to the internet. If they want to continue funding the
BBC from a licence fee payable only by those who watch television, they'll
find themselves with a situation that is impossible to administer.

Rod.

Will computer retailers now have to notify TV Licensing?

Scott

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:43:45 +0000, Scott wrote:

Will computer retailers now have to notify TV Licensing?

Scott

PCWorld have been taking name & address for a number of years now if you
buy a TV card. etc.

Lordy

"Scott" wrote in message
...

[ re IPTV ]

Will computer retailers now have to notify TV Licensing?


Why would they? Broadband ISP's, now that is a different matter...

The tv licence will remain for the foreeable future, ie, at least the
next 10 years.

The original OnDIgtial system was entirely subscription, which would
have made it possible to abolish the tv licence (if desired!), but
incompetent "engineers" ensured it didn't work (nearly finishing off
ITV, along the way!).

Roderick Stewart wrote:
But then... the BBC are planning to put their broacasts on the
internet, arent't they? What are we to assume about the legality of
watching those with or without a licence, or even *owning a
computer*? The current licence is apparently required if you have
equipment installed for the use of receiving broadcasts, which would
by that definition include any computer connected to the internet. If
they want to continue funding the BBC from a licence fee payable only
by those who watch television, they'll find themselves with a
situation that is impossible to administer.

Don't think it will be anything as complicated as detector vans ,
computer databases etc. "They" will just charge ISPs who in turn will
put a charge on your (TINY) internet fees to cover the cost of a
"license" to watch BBC on your computer (even if you don't and have no
intention of doing so).
--
This post contains no hidden meanings, no implications and certainly no
hidden agendas so it should be taken at face value. The wrong words
may be used this is due to my limitations with the English language .

yours S
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione

"-GB-Carpy" wrote in message
.uk...

"Ad C" wrote in message
k...
In article . com,
says...
Said to me today:

The BBC will also be forbidden from consigning all its arts programming to
BBC4 or its documentaries to BBC2. Instead, every channel will have to
fulfil the corporation's public service remit.

ISTM that it would be better if they did do this
That way you wouldn't get the annoying problem of having
two programs that you want to watch clashing.
If "1" showed wall to wall soaps and dross comedy, it would
be impossible for there to be a clash

tim

In message . com,
spiney wrote

, but
incompetent "engineers" ensured it didn't work

And the accountants paying too much for program content (second rate
football) that no-one wanted to watch.

--
Alan