|
|
":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
enews.net... "David Taylor" wrote in message ... "-GB-Carpy" wrote on Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:01:33 GMT: 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. What's the point of having 4 identical BBC channels? What's the point in there being more than one Sky Movie channel (for example), after all, a film is a film!.... Doesn't explain why each film is shown twice a day and usually for two days a week and then the same for every week ad infinitum... Haven't Sky heard of Sky+? Or VCRs for that matter? -- Max Demian |
"Brian" wrote in message
... On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:20:09 +0100, 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. By "that definition" according to certain dictionary definitions of 'receive' and 'broadcast', yes. In practical terms according to the intention of the TV license, no. Otherwise I'd need a license for "broadcasting" via paper invitations about a party, and those "receiving" them would need a license too. It's about the ability to receive & utilise radio frequency transmissions. If they want to later on talk about viewing material made by a corporation (ie. downloading a BBC video or buying a BBC CD with video files on it) then that's another matter entirely and is unrelated to computer licensing. Except that you still need a TV licence if all your equipment is for cable reception. -- Max Demian |
In article s.net,
":::Jerry::::" writes "Scott" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:18:25 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" wrote: "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 duty is on the seller of the reception equipment. AIUI it is the TV shop not the aerial installer that has to notify at present. The point is, a computer can be (and mainly is) used for many things other than watching TV over IPTV, if were the computer does not have a IP connection (or certain content is blocked) to the outside world then it's impossible to be used for such a service. The fact is, a TV set is sold ready and able to receive broadcast services (why else would someone buy a TV), thus the law states that TVL have to be informed of each and every *receiver* sold - no such requirement exists for the sale of *monitors* - although if connected to a STB or PVR etc. they could be used to watch broadcast services... The STB is notified, and is subject to licence if used to receive television programmes. -- Ian G8ILZ |
kim wrote:
The license fee is for the right to use receiving equipment, it has nothing to do with the right to watch programmes. Correct. The BBC was originally a branch of the Marconi Radio Company and the government inherited all its patent rights when it was incorporated in 1922. Almost completely incorrect. Regardless of where a programme originates you pay a license fee for the equipment to receive it. Some of us prefer 'licence', but, yes, that's true. Added to that many if not all of the technicians at Sky and ITV were trained by the BBC at the license payer's expense. Quite possibly - though I don't know any statistics, and I doubt whether they're knowable. André Coutanche |
"Max Demian" wrote in message ... ":::Jerry::::" wrote in message enews.net... "David Taylor" wrote in message ... snip What's the point of having 4 identical BBC channels? What's the point in there being more than one Sky Movie channel (for example), after all, a film is a film!.... Doesn't explain why each film is shown twice a day and usually for two days a week and then the same for every week ad infinitum... Haven't Sky heard of Sky+? Or VCRs for that matter? Or indeed waiting six months and buying your very own copy, assuming that it's a 'new' release - but then all the above mean putting some effort into doing more than sitting on your backside and pressing the remote buttons - even if it is only the need to put a fresh tape or DVD in the machine, if you get my drift...... |
"Prometheus" wrote in message ... In article s.net, ":::Jerry::::" writes snip The fact is, a TV set is sold ready and able to receive broadcast services (why else would someone buy a TV), thus the law states that TVL have to be informed of each and every *receiver* sold - no such requirement exists for the sale of *monitors* - although if connected to a STB or PVR etc. they could be used to watch broadcast services... The STB is notified, and is subject to licence if used to receive television programmes. That was my point, the equipment has to be able to *receive*, without the need for add on cards or 'boxes', a computer (without a TV receiver card) or 'production' monitor is no more able to receive a television service as a washing machine or toaster can. |
":::Jerry::::" wrote in message news:432bd463$0$8012
Probably not, seeing that they obviously know the difference between the legal need to have a licence to own (use) a TV and that of needing a subscription to view certain channels.... The law doesn't come into it, this is personal, it's about their job security :) |
"André Coutanche" wrote in message ... kim wrote: snip Added to that many if not all of the technicians at Sky and ITV were trained by the BBC at the license payer's expense. Quite possibly - though I don't know any statistics, and I doubt whether they're knowable. Oh, I think it's possible to know how many people were trained by BBC training in a given period, it's quite possible that names could even be put to those figures, it's not difficult to then work out the numbers employed in the technical side of the television industry and who they work for - at one time, AIUI, the BBC were the only broadcast industry training organisation, and this didn't change until relatively recently. |
"André Coutanche" wrote in message
... kim wrote: The license fee is for the right to use receiving equipment, it has nothing to do with the right to watch programmes. Correct. The BBC was originally a branch of the Marconi Radio Company and the government inherited all its patent rights when it was incorporated in 1922. Almost completely incorrect. Okay, I was simplifying matters for the purpose of this NG but if you insist on having the full monty:- "Another important area in the advances made in wireless telephony lay in public broadcasting. On 15th June 1920, Britain's first advertised public broadcast programme took place. A song recital by Dame Nellie Melba was broadcast using a Marconi 15 kW telephone transmitter at the Marconi works in Chelmsford, and was heard in many countries. In 1921, the Company was permitted to broadcast the first regular public entertainment programme from a low-power transmitter at Writtle, near Chelmsford, and later from the first London station at Marconi House. Unrestricted competition was checked however, when, in 1922, the question of broadcasting was referred to the Broadcasting Sub-Committee of the Imperial Conference. In 1922, all the competing interests were merged the British Broadcasting Company, later to become the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). " From the History section of Marcon's official website:- http://www.marconi.com/Home/about_us...coni%20History (kim) |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com