In article ,
says...

Will computer retailers now have to notify TV Licensing?



That would not work, what about people like myself who build their own?

kim wrote:

Okay, I was simplifying matters for the purpose of this NG but if
you insist on having the full monty:-

snip

In 1922, *all the competing interests* were merged the British
Broadcasting Company, later to become the British Broadcasting
Corporation (BBC). " [my emphasis]

So the BBC *wasn't* "a branch of the Marconi Radio Company", which is
the point I was making. And I don't know where you got the stuff about
patents from. But thanks for the Marconi URL - interesting stuff. It's
certainly the case that Writtle - and Peter Eckersley - were one of
the foundations of British broadcasting, but I think the Marconi
website (understandably) rather ignores the other influences..

André Coutanche

"Ad C" wrote in message
k...
In article
ws.net,
LID says...

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.... :~(

The BBc was so good a few years back, it was worth paying for, most
time
you switch on to a BBc channel, there would be something iteresting
to
watch and that was with only 2 channels, now it is boring watered
down
rubbish.

Did you actually read what I said or did you just repost your
ignorant rant?...


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


It is their choice, just like it is my choice not to pay Sky for
Sky
movies or Sky sports. I have just downgraded my Sky by 2 mixes. My
choice.

If people do not want to watch the BBC, they should not have to pay
for
it.


If people don't want to pay to watch Cricket, or any number of other
sports high-jacked by Murdock they should not be forced to do so, the
fact is, sometimes we have to do what we don't like!....


what would that subscription cover - how would the BBC's radio
(and
other non television services be funded?



BBc radio can have adverts and any other BBC non-television
services.

Your idea of a quality service is very strange... :~(

"Ad C" wrote in message
k...

If people do not want to watch the BBC, they should not have to pay for
it.

If people do not want to watch ITV or Sky they should not have to pay for it
either but they do in the form of TV commercials and training of former-BBC
staff..

BBc radio can have adverts and any other BBC non-television services.

And that would put commercial radio stations completely out of business
almost overnight.

(kim)

In article , Ad C
writes
In article ,
says...

Will computer retailers now have to notify TV Licensing?

That would not work, what about people like myself who build their own?

Possession of a CPU without a licence will be a criminal offence, of
course you could always build your own from TTL or perhaps even double
triodes.
--
Ian G8ILZ

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:41:32 +0100, Max Demian wrote:

Except that you still need a TV licence if all your equipment is for cable
reception.

sigh Yes, but you see what I mean - even though it was expressed in a
non-bulletproof way. Just as well I'm not a lawyer.

Received by something specifically designed to receive cable data. Not a
general-purpose computer serving many functions. Not a person receiving a
party invitation.
The word "received" wasn't coined specifically for the purposes of helping
define the movement of licensable entertainment/educational data as the OP
suggests. In the context of a TV license it's fairly specific.
Yes, I know a computer can play back a file containing a recording of an
otherwise licensable TV program - but the use and redistrubution of that
recording would be covered by existing legislation - music CDs, DVDs etc.

B.
--
Your mother has a smooth forehead!
- Klingon insult.

"kim" wrote in message
...
"Ad C" wrote in message
k...

If people do not want to watch the BBC, they should not have to pay for
it.

If people do not want to watch ITV or Sky they should not have to pay for
it
either but they do in the form of TV commercials and training of
former-BBC
staff..

BBc radio can have adverts and any other BBC non-television services.

And that would put commercial radio stations completely out of business
almost overnight.

(kim)




Advertisers pay for TV commercials, and this is how the Western world works.
So what!

An employer pays for their employees' training, and most businesses should
recoup that expenditure in the short term. When the employee leaves, that is
that, and there is no come back on the first employer. Even the NHS is
forced to accept that.

Anyway, the skills learnt within the BBC, of slothing off, filling out HR
and expenses forms, of gobbling biscuits, of disfiguring programmes with the
[b][b][C] logo, and attending junkettes, are hardly skills ITV or BSKYB
would need. C4 and FIVE have the right idea, for they simply commission all
their programmes and leave "indies" to do it as cheaply as they can.

The sooner we rid the nation of the licence fee, the better.

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
eenews.net...

"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......

I don't want to pay good money for (and have to store) a DVD I may only play
once (if at all).

If they didn't have the repeats they could show ten times as many different
films.

--
Max Demian

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
eenews.net...

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.

A computer with broadband capability would be able to receive TV programmes
if the BBC streamed it.

That's when you might find the TV licensing people hassling you to buy a TV
licence for a computer (even if you don't watch TV).

--
Max Demian

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
...

snip

Anyway, the skills learnt within the BBC, of slothing off, filling
out HR
and expenses forms, of gobbling biscuits, of disfiguring programmes
with the
[b][b][C] logo, and attending junkettes, are hardly skills ITV or
BSKYB
would need. C4 and FIVE have the right idea, for they simply
commission all
their programmes and leave "indies" to do it as cheaply as they
can.

You really are a clue less little *unt, you wouldn't know what it
takes to make a radio or TV programme if it hit you between the
eyes....