In article s.net,
LID says...

What's the point in there being more than one Sky Movie channel (for
example), after all, a film is a film!....


But they show different movies at the same time. Not that I subscribe to
the movie channels.

I find it cheaper to rent DVDs by post and at least you get a choice of
what you want.

In article ,
says...

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?


This is one of the reason I would not get Sky+, with so many repeats, it
would come round again and I got the DVD recorder to record anything I
want to record.

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

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
snip

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

No doubt you would also only want the film shown at a time that you
will be watching....

I do. And I want to be able to pause, rewind and repeat them. And stick them
on the shelf for later viewing...

--
Max Demian

In article ws.net,
LID says...


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

No, I did not read a word of it.

Of cause I bloody did.



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!....


I have got no interest in cricket, but I do not agree with it going on
to Sky.


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

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


Nothing wrong with adverts, we have to put up with then everyday, even
on the BBC we have to put up with adverts.

"kim" wrote in message
...

Marconi owned the patents on all radio receivers in the UK. They set up
the
British Broadcasting _Company_ as a way of boosting radio sales. That was
financed by receipts from the patent license which is why British radio
didn't need advertsing. When the company was nationalised the government
inherited the patent rights in perpetuity. The current BBC license fee is
an
extension of the right to charge for the use of the original Marconi
company
patents and of course have now been extended to include televison and
whatever else the government decides. That is why you need a "BBC" license
whether you receive BBC programming or not.

If that was true, the licence fee would have been abolished once that last
of the patents ran out.

And since when did purchasers of appliances have to pay a fee to use
patented gear?

--
Max Demian

In article , says...


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..


No they dont, this is the way things go, you gte a job, get trained then
leave for something better.

Anyway, how many don't watch ITV? ITV at the moemnt is showing some
things that are better than the BBC.


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.


We have been told that time and time again about multi channel T.V./
channels would not get the avertisments and would fail.
It have not happened so far, well not to any main channel anyway.


Some of the radio stations deserve to fail.

In article ws.net,
LID says...


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....

And you do I presume?

In article ,
says...

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

Oh dear, so bang goes my washing machine then.

course you could always build your own from TTL or perhaps even double
triodes.


I wish.

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

What's the point in there being more than one Sky Movie channel
(for
example), after all, a film is a film!....


But they show different movies at the same time. Not that I
subscribe to
the movie channels.


That was my point, taking the comment about the BBC made be David
Taylor, there might well be 8 BBC channels but none of them are
normally showing the same programme at the same time. Sky movies OTOH
do often show the same film on different channels, at the same time,
just with staggered start times - with Sky+ and PVR's what is the
point of that!...

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


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

No, I did not read a word of it.

Of cause I bloody did.

So why did you repeat your original comment whilst totaly ignoring
what I said?!

snip

Nothing wrong with adverts, we have to put up with then everyday,
even
on the BBC we have to put up with adverts.


If you believe that you have little or no understanding as to how
advertising changes what is, and how it is, broadcast. Half the
problem ATM with the BBC is it's internal market and the phoney
ratings war with ITV, hence we have to put up with 'advert' breaks.