FilmFour free on Sky?
 

In article ,
Stewart Smith wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
Big Al Big wrote:
The FTV cards are specific to Channel 4, five & Sky Three.

And the TV licence is specific to the BBC

No it isn't. The TV licence is *not* payment for watching BBC programs
but for having broadcast receiving equipment.


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?

don't think it ever started. It was a proposal made during the last
consultation phase.

--
From KT24 - in drought-ridden Surrey

Using a RISC OS5 computer

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

"Phil Cook" wrote in message
...
"Big Al" Big wrote:


"Nigel Barker" wrote

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

And the TV licence is specific to the BBC

The licence fee is specific to all television in the UK, you can't get
out of buying one by not watching Auntie.



I seem to manage to avoid it. ;-)

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Big Al Big wrote:
The FTV cards are specific to Channel 4, five & Sky Three.

And the TV licence is specific to the BBC

No it isn't. The TV licence is *not* payment for watching BBC programs but
for
having broadcast receiving equipment.

--


No its not. It's for having broadcast receiving equipment *installed* with
the *intent* to *use* to receive *live* television programmes.

You can have as many unlicensed TV sets as you like providing you do not
intall it or *intend* to use it to receive live television programmes.

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Heracles Pollux wrote:
No its not. It's for having broadcast receiving equipment *installed*
with the *intent* to *use* to receive *live* television programmes.

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

Sounds like you're a licence-dodger, expecting the rest of us to
subsidise your viewing.

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

"Pyriform" wrote in message
...
Heracles Pollux wrote:
No its not. It's for having broadcast receiving equipment *installed*
with the *intent* to *use* to receive *live* television programmes.

********. 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


Sounds like you're a licence-dodger, expecting the rest of us to subsidise
your viewing.


I refuse to pay the BBC's TV Licence. I prefer the term quality loving
"patriot" to "dodger".

I don't expect *you* to subsidise my viewing nor will I be *subsidising*
your usage of the BBC.

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Heracles Pollux wrote:
Sounds like you're a licence-dodger, expecting the rest of us to
subsidise your viewing.

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". It has a certain seedy charm
to it, and helps to reinforce the image of you which is currently
developing in my mind.

No doubt you will wish to have your personal exemption from the licence
fee tested in a court of law. I look forward to reading about it.

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

"Pyriform" wrote in message
...
Heracles Pollux wrote:
Sounds like you're a licence-dodger, expecting the rest of us to
subsidise your viewing.

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". It has a certain seedy charm
to it, and helps to reinforce the image of you which is currently
developing in my mind.

No doubt you will wish to have your personal exemption from the licence
fee tested in a court of law. I look forward to reading about it.



There are 2 million "common thieves" as you call it or about 5% of the
population who don't pay the TV Licence.

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?

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

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.

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:
On 30 May 2006 09:10:23 -0700, "Mark Carver"
wrote:


But you pay for a TV licence, so BBC1 must be 'pay-tv' too.

So when my FTV card expires (because Sky change the encryption scheme)
it will be replaced by Sky free of charge ? If not, then in my book
that's an 'ongoing cost' ?


No more an ongoing cost than buying a new TV every time the old one
breaks, and not one which is specific to any particular TV channel in
any case.

But it's not quite the same. If my electricity meter breaks, the local supply
company replace it FOC, though of course I still pay for the actual electricity used.

If an electrical appliance breaks, I pay for a new one.

A FTV card, is Sky's 'revenue protection' device, just as the Lekky Meter
is for my supply company. It's interesting to note that if a Sky sub card
needs replacing, then that is done FOC (unless damaged by the viewer).

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

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

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

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
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.

--


The word LIVE is not in the Act of Parliament.

It's in the "Statutory Instrument" written by Tessa I can't remember taking
out a £300K loan Jowell.



See post 3 here where this is quoted by the Gestapo:

http://www.tvlicensing.biz/phpBB2/vi...ht=viewed+live

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
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.

--



Dickhead.

The nature of radio and satellite broadcasting is that most additional
receivers within the target area of transmission have no significant effect
on the availability of bandwidth.

Were the TV licence to be used for Public Service Broadcasting, I would
consider paying it.

Instead, the entire sum of money is given to the BBC who frankly **** it
away. I need not remind the Newsgroup of the many ways the BBC wastes public
money.

Finally why is ITV, Channel 4, FIVE, Sky, and my own Public Service
Broadcasts not equally given public funds, and why is there no "beauty
competition" and "competitive tendering"?

I feel glad that because I do not pay the BBC licence fee, you, Mr dickhead,
personally have to pay Jonathan Ross and co more money, and that is because
you chose to.

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:

So when my FTV card expires (because Sky change the encryption scheme)
it will be replaced by Sky free of charge ? If not, then in my book
that's an 'ongoing cost' ?

No more an ongoing cost than buying a new TV every time the old one
breaks,

The card doesn't break or wear out. It is deliberately disabled by
Sky.


and not one which is specific to any particular TV channel in
any case.

It is indeed totally specific to the 3 FTV channels.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Zero Tolerance 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.

That is neither here nor there. The £20 does not include those
subscription channels.


Nonetheless, it doesn't change the fact that a viewing card is
equipment,

Even when it provides subscription channels?

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:
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.

It's not a 'one off' charge though. The FTV cards expire every 3-5
years, and a new one needs to be purchased, at cost to the viewer, NOT
Sky. I know 20 quid every 3 years is small beer in most households, but
even so it should be Sky that foot the bill for this. Perhaps you can
explain where the millions of pounds that C4 and C5 pay for encryption
actually goes, cos it doesn't go towards provision of the FTV cards
does it ?

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

"Nigel Barker" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 May 2006 17:04:36 +0100, "Pyriform" wrote:

Heracles Pollux wrote:
Sounds like you're a licence-dodger, expecting the rest of us to
subsidise your viewing.

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". It has a certain seedy charm
to it, and helps to reinforce the image of you which is currently
developing in my mind.

No doubt you will wish to have your personal exemption from the licence
fee tested in a court of law. I look forward to reading about it.

I would have though that the offence was more akin to tax evasion than
theft.
Just like driving a car but not paying for the Road Fund License.

--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur


Well quite.

And Vehicle Excise Duty is far more effectively Policed, since road-side
cameras plus software can easily detect this offence that takes place in
public.

The problem with the TV Licence law is that the "criminal offence" can not
be detected without either the stupidity or the cooperation of the offender.

A slight problem with the TVL regime is that it is enforced on a
"commission" basis so people like me myself who would require weeks of
surveillance to "detect" an offence don't get "enforced". Further, the
"Enforcers" find their right of access to one's property has been withdrawn
legally and there is no legal obligation under Magna Carta for the accused
to provide the "prosecution" with "evidence".

The best strategy has always been for the BBC to make services that people
would *want* to subscribe to and have pride in being part of the audience
for.

The problem is the BBC actively insults people like me and makes programmes
we have no desire to see. I don't see why I should fund digital switch over,
the BBC's outsourced buildings, the BBC's overpaid useless talent, and the
BBC's "marketing" of what is meant to be a universal public resource.
Because Bliar and Jowell say I should, I don't believe them,.

Like the Communists trying to hold together the Soviet Block, the BBC is
fighting a losing argument trying to use coercion to instil its own
centralist-plan for us all when it is blatantly corrupt and a perversion of
what PSB means.



I am a patriot, philanthropist, business man, director of companies, elected
public servant, and payer of many taxes, but I won't pay public money to the
BBC. I can admit so, not with shame, but with self-confidence and pride,
that I am not part of the solution but part of the problem.

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

MJ Ray wrote:
"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.

Hardly less accurate than describing it as an act of "patriotism". That
truly is the last refuge of the scoundrel!

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Heracles Pollux wrote:
And Vehicle Excise Duty is far more effectively Policed, since
road-side cameras plus software can easily detect this offence that
takes place in public.

The problem with the TV Licence law is that the "criminal offence"
can not be detected without either the stupidity or the cooperation
of the offender.

I think I get it now. The reason you don't commit a whole raft of other
offences is the fear of being caught, rather than any moral imperative.
You see licence evasion as an easy way of saving yourself some money, at
everybody else's expense. But you've prepared a fig leaf of a defence
(just in case) with your bizarre claim that you are exempt anyway,
because you only watch recordings!

And you claim to be "an elected public servant". In what capacity, may I
ask? I do hope the rest of us aren't in any way subsidising your
political ambitions, and that the electors are fully aware of your moral
cowardice masquerading as "patriotism".

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Nigel Barker wrote:
On Wed, 31 May 2006 17:04:36 +0100, "Pyriform" wrote:

Heracles Pollux wrote:
Sounds like you're a licence-dodger, expecting the rest of us to
subsidise your viewing.

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". It has a certain seedy charm
to it, and helps to reinforce the image of you which is currently
developing in my mind.

No doubt you will wish to have your personal exemption from the licence
fee tested in a court of law. I look forward to reading about it.

I would have though that the offence was more akin to tax evasion than theft.
Just like driving a car but not paying for the Road Fund License.


Except that this would be an offence only if the car were driven on a
public road.

Regards,
Arfur

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

On Wed, 31 May 2006 20:08:10 +0100, "Heracles Pollux"
wrote:

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?

The licence fee is wrong, no question there, but for as long as it IS
the law, then everyone is obliged to pay it. If you choose not to help
carry this particular coffin, you just make it all the heavier for
everyone else.

--

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 08:39:05 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

Nonetheless, it doesn't change the fact that a viewing card is
equipment,

Even when it provides subscription channels?

Absolutely.

--

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 08:39:05 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

No more an ongoing cost than buying a new TV every time the old one
breaks,

The card doesn't break or wear out. It is deliberately disabled by
Sky.

It becomes technologically obsolete when it is no longer able to
securely protect the integrity of the broadcast signal. It's not in
Sky's interest to issue new cards a moment before they absolutely have
to - it's a stupidly expensive operation.


--

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 May 2006 20:08:10 +0100, "Heracles Pollux"
wrote:

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?

The licence fee is wrong, no question there, but for as long as it IS
the law, then everyone is obliged to pay it. If you choose not to help
carry this particular coffin, you just make it all the heavier for
everyone else.

--

Don't be daft. The BBC is a quango institution and will simply expand to
fill the budget available. It has nothing to do with public demand that the
BBC ****es away so much money.

The converse is true: The more people who are willing to pay the BBC's
superannuation will be interpreted as a justification for continuing this
"fee" and its annual rises. The more people who "resist" the ever increasing
inflation busting fee, the harder it will be for the BBC to say the public
supports it.

I don't regard myself as a mere serf living within New Liebour and the BBC's
fiefdom, obligated to tip my cap, bow, and pay a tithe to the BBCs
aristocratic ruling elite. I owe them, nothing. I show the BBC no respect.

ZT, you disappoint me, that you of all people, would willingly pander to
them at the BBC who are your inferiors? ;-)

At least Sky, **** that I think it is, never needed to stick a gun to
peoples heads, and ultimately gives people what they chose to subscribe to
voluntarily.

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

"Arfur Million" wrote in message
oups.com...
Nigel Barker wrote:
On Wed, 31 May 2006 17:04:36 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Except that this would be an offence only if the car were driven on a
public road.

Regards,
Arfur

Actually, the law has changed. its now an offence not to have the car taxed
even if its not on the public highway unless you have declared it to be
undrivable though a SORN. But then to drive it at all makes it liable to
road fund licence

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
...

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 May 2006 20:08:10 +0100, "Heracles Pollux"
wrote:

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?

The licence fee is wrong, no question there, but for as long as it IS
the law, then everyone is obliged to pay it. If you choose not to help
carry this particular coffin, you just make it all the heavier for
everyone else.

--

Don't be daft. The BBC is a quango institution and will simply expand to
fill the budget available. It has nothing to do with public demand that
the BBC ****es away so much money.

The converse is true: The more people who are willing to pay the BBC's
superannuation will be interpreted as a justification for continuing this
"fee" and its annual rises. The more people who "resist" the ever
increasing inflation busting fee, the harder it will be for the BBC to say
the public supports it.

I don't regard myself as a mere serf living within New Liebour and the
BBC's fiefdom, obligated to tip my cap, bow, and pay a tithe to the BBCs
aristocratic ruling elite. I owe them, nothing. I show the BBC no respect.

ZT, you disappoint me, that you of all people, would willingly pander to
them at the BBC who are your inferiors? ;-)

At least Sky, **** that I think it is, never needed to stick a gun to
peoples heads, and ultimately gives people what they chose to subscribe to
voluntarily.

Totally true.
Let the BBC live or die on its own merits, not by subsidies.
They spend £14 MILLION a year on self advertising! Advertising a product you
have no choice in if you buy it or not. They pay so called "stars" Millions
a year of our money when these "stars" could not get a job at McDonalds at
£5 an hour if they had to live in the real world and expect pensioners,
people with little disposable income and even the Tax dodgers (students) to
pay for their vast over inflated salaries.
The Quango which is the TV licensing authority wastes millions every year on
collecting this tax for that is what it is to pay for Bliars propaganda
machine.

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:

No more an ongoing cost than buying a new TV every time the old one
breaks,

The card doesn't break or wear out. It is deliberately disabled by
Sky.

It becomes technologically obsolete when it is no longer able to
securely protect the integrity of the broadcast signal.

This is irrelevant when it comes to FTV channels. Sky are only
concerned about the security of pay channels. There is no reason why
FTV viewers should have to fork out such an excessive charge just
because Sky want to keep pay channels secure.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Mark Carver wrote:

Perhaps you can
explain where the millions of pounds that C4 and C5 pay for encryption
actually goes

It appears directly as profit in the BSkyB accounts.

This is really money for old rope as far as Sky are concerned. It
doesn't actually cost them anything at all to provide encryption for
C4 and C5, yet they get paid millions for doing so.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

I don't regard myself as a mere serf living within New Liebour and the
BBC's fiefdom, obligated to tip my cap, bow, and pay a tithe to the BBCs
aristocratic ruling elite. I owe them, nothing. I show the BBC no
respect.

ZT, you disappoint me, that you of all people, would willingly pander to
them at the BBC who are your inferiors? ;-)

At least Sky, **** that I think it is, never needed to stick a gun to
peoples heads, and ultimately gives people what they chose to subscribe
to voluntarily.

Totally true.
Let the BBC live or die on its own merits, not by subsidies.
They spend £14 MILLION a year on self advertising! Advertising a product
you have no choice in if you buy it or not. They pay so called "stars"
Millions a year of our money when these "stars" could not get a job at
McDonalds at £5 an hour if they had to live in the real world and expect
pensioners, people with little disposable income and even the Tax dodgers
(students) to pay for their vast over inflated salaries.
The Quango which is the TV licensing authority wastes millions every year
on collecting this tax for that is what it is to pay for Bliars propaganda
machine.



All true.

And ask ourselves this. Why wasn't Top-Up TV and NDS Datacorp / Sky
competitively tendered to operate the TVL Licensing authority at the
beginning of the next Charter renewal?

The BBC is simply ancient feudalism and serfdom trying to insert itself in a
moderm market economy.

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

In article ,
Heracles Pollux wrote:




All true.

And ask ourselves this. Why wasn't Top-Up TV and NDS Datacorp / Sky
competitively tendered to operate the TVL Licensing authority at the
beginning of the next Charter renewal?

Possibly because the contract with the current agency didn't co-incide with
the Charter renewal. the present operator obtained the job by competitive
tendering.

It may not be related but, Many moons ago, before the BBC Microcomputer was
launched, there was an outcry that Clive Sinclair hadn't won the tender and
it had been awarded to an unknown company "Acorn". The reality was that
Sinclair had been asked to tended and declined the offer.

--
From KT24 - in drought-ridden Surrey

Using a RISC OS5 computer

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

In article ,
Heracles Pollux wrote:
The BBC is simply ancient feudalism and serfdom trying to insert itself in a
moderm market economy.

By all means bugger off to some society that is happy with your nightmare but
leave our civilisation alone.

Just remember that we might very well have to charge you way over the top for
decent programmes once you've finally got sick of watching all that's in the
BBC archives.

--
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