FilmFour free on Sky?
 

(Zero Tolerance)
On 30 May 2006 12:35:01 GMT, MJ Ray wrote:
Face it: Public Service Broadcasters should not encrypt in only one
platform owner's system. That's anti-competitive bundling.

Absolutely. But how many other satellite encryption platforms exist in
the UK? None which are major enough for it to be worth the PSBs
simulcrypting with.

Viaccess and Seca are readily available and I think one of them is
already in use on DVB-T, so there's a manufacturing chain already.

But what is 'worth' here? Aren't PSBs meant to be public services?
Bundling themselves to Sky is a public disservice.

--
MJR/slef
Free Sat FAQ: http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/astefaq

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

On 31 May 2006 16:59:18 GMT, MJ Ray wrote:

Viaccess and Seca are readily available and I think one of them is
already in use on DVB-T, so there's a manufacturing chain already.

Yes but there's no "platform" that uses them. Sure, they're available.


But what is 'worth' here? Aren't PSBs meant to be public services?
Bundling themselves to Sky is a public disservice.

Not being available on satellite at all would be an equal disservice.
What exactly do you want here?

--

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

On Wed, 31 May 2006 12:38:04 GMT, Nigel Barker wrote:

The FTV cards are specific to Channel 4, five & Sky Three.

Given that they could be upgraded to subscription cards, they're
specific to rather a lot of channels.

Nonetheless, it doesn't change the fact that a viewing card is
equipment, and a one-off charge for such a card does not mean that
what you view with it becomes a subscription channel.

--

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

On Wed, 31 May 2006 14:20:29 +0100, Stewart Smith
wrote:

Don't Channel 4 and possibly ITV get some money from it as well for
their public service broadcasts? Like regional programming for
instance. Or has that all stopped now?

It never happened. They suggested it recently but the BBC fought back
furiously and convinced the Government that the world would end if the
BBC got anything less than every single penny of an ever-increasing
licence fee.
--

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

On Wed, 31 May 2006 16:30:07 +0100, "Heracles Pollux"
wrote:

********. Where does this *live* aspect come from?

The "TV Licensing Authority" and the Secretary of State who defines the
meaning of The Communactions Act 2003 section 363 to 368 legislation.

http://www.tvlicensing.biz/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=590

The word "live" does not appear anywhere on that page.

--

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

"Pyriform" wrote in message
...
Heracles Pollux wrote:
There are 2 million "common thieves" as you call it or about 5% of the
population who don't pay the TV Licence.

I'm failing to see your point. You wish to be called a "*very* common
thief"? If it's exclusivity you were hoping for, you seem to be in the
wrong game!

Excuse me, **** head, but by the common law definition of "theft",
what exactly has someone who infringes section 363 of the
Communications Act 2003 stolen or deprived the owner of?

It is self evident that those of us who pay our licence fees are obliged
to make up for the shortfall in revenue occasioned by criminals such as
you. You have therefore stolen *money* from the law abiding majority.
Shoplifters do the same, and no doubt bleat in a similar fashion to you
when confronted with their crimes.



What, "stealing" a service that I don't want?

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Heracles Pollux wrote:
There are 2 million "common thieves" as you call it or about 5% of the
population who don't pay the TV Licence.

You may prefer the description "parasite". It fits.

--
John Cartmell [email protected] followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing




Except, I don't want to be attached to this host, but rather the BBC is a
parasite that wishes to attach itself to me.

Again, who is trying to take what from whom?

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

In article ,
Heracles Pollux wrote:

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Heracles Pollux wrote:
There are 2 million "common thieves" as you call it or about 5% of the
population who don't pay the TV Licence.

You may prefer the description "parasite". It fits.

Except, I don't want to be attached to this host, but rather the BBC is a
parasite that wishes to attach itself to me.

For the privilege of using public resources (limited broadcast space) you are
required to contribute to the finances of public broadcasting.

Again, who is trying to take what from whom?

You are stealing from me. More importantly you are stealing from my
granddaughter. I really do hope they take from you all the sums that you owe
with much interest.

--
John Cartmell [email protected] followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

In article ,
Heracles Pollux wrote:
What, "stealing" a service that I don't want?

It is not a broadcast service that you are paying for; the service is free.
You are paying to use broadcast bandwidth. You are stealing that service and,
by cowardly failing to pay your way through life, you are making the rest of
us pay more and / or reducing the public service broadcasting that is
available free to all. Your action is despicable.

--
John Cartmell [email protected] followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

"Pyriform"
Heracles Pollux wrote:
I refuse to pay the BBC's TV Licence. I prefer the term quality loving
"patriot" to "dodger".

Actually, I prefer the term "common thief". [...]

You may prefer it, but it is highly inaccurate to describe licence evasion
as theft, any more than it is to describe cracking pay-TV as theft. Not
all illegal activities are types of theft. That's the sort of silly
simplification peddled by F*CT and friends because they're too dense to
cope with reality.

--
MJR/slef