FilmFour free on Sky?
 

On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 00:14:43 +0100, "Heracles Pollux"
wrote:

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.

Good god, I find myself in agreement with you! :-)

--

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 09:38:29 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

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.

It does cost them money to give away set top boxes to millions of
people, though, and C4/C5 benefit from that.

--

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 09:38:29 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

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.

If channels are paying for encryption then by definition they are
paying for security. Doesn't matter if they're FTV or pay, they both
want the same thing, and Sky's obligation to both is the same.
--

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

In article ,
Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 00:14:43 +0100, "Heracles Pollux"
wrote:

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.

Good god, I find myself in agreement with you! :-)

Let's be perfectly accurate about matters. The BBC are paid for by the TV
licence fee because that is what Parliament has decided. Various govenments
of various colours have tried to come up with alternative ways of funding
but they all come back to the licence system.

Don't blame the messenger for the message.

--
From KT24 - in drought-ridden Surrey

Using a RISC OS5 computer

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

In article ,
charles wrote:
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.

Do you have a reference for that? My personal library only takes me back to
mid-1982 (Acorn User Number 1) and I do like to gather (the rather sparse)
information from before that date.

--
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?
 

Big Al wrote:
"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.

Yes

But then to drive it at all makes it liable to
road fund licence

Not if you only drive it on private land, surely?

Regards,
Arfur

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 12:05:14 +0100, charles
wrote:

Let's be perfectly accurate about matters. The BBC are paid for by the TV
licence fee because that is what Parliament has decided. Various govenments
of various colours have tried to come up with alternative ways of funding
but they all come back to the licence system.

Because the BBC manipulates the market such that any alternative to
the licence fee is somehow impractical for some reason.

The most obvious example of this is Freeview. Up until 2001, all
digital TV equipment (satellite, cable or terrestrial) came with
encryption facilities which could easily have been used to ensure that
only people who wanted to watch the BBC had to pay for it.

Then the BBC piles into Freeview, encouraging manufacturers to flood
the market with cheap set top boxes with no encryption system at all.
A couple of years, and ten million set top boxes later, and once again
there is no possible way that the Government could decide to replace
the forced licence fee with a voluntary subscription. BBC wins again.

And rememember, the BBC admitted that this was their strategy.
It's not just the usual usenet cynicism. :-)

--

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:

The most obvious example of this is Freeview. Up until 2001, all
digital TV equipment (satellite, cable or terrestrial) came with
encryption facilities which could easily have been used to ensure that
only people who wanted to watch the BBC had to pay for it.

Then the BBC piles into Freeview, encouraging manufacturers to flood
the market with cheap set top boxes with no encryption system at all.
A couple of years, and ten million set top boxes later, and once again
there is no possible way that the Government could decide to replace
the forced licence fee with a voluntary subscription. BBC wins again.

And rememember, the BBC admitted that this was their strategy.

Having seen the appalling anti-competitive disaster for viewers that
encrypted TV in the UK has always been, it comes as no surprise at all
that the non-pay channels would want as little as possible to do with
it. Me too.

Pay TV is a catastrophe that leads to the sort of programming that one
sees on Sky channels. You may think that this has some merit. (You may
also be brain damaged.) I certainly do not. There is nothing worth
watching on the Sky channels. The little that is worth watching on pay
TV is mostly made up of repeats of old BBC and independent programmes
previously shown for free on the terrestrial channels.

Pay TV also leads to the gross overcharging of non-Sky channels for
encryption services that they don't need or want, which was in fact
the main reason why the BBC "piled into Freeview" and also why they
instigated Freesat. It is also the reason why ITV have stopped
encrypting and why the C4 channels are looking also to change.

It also leads to the sort of shenanigans that caused ITVDigital to
collapse (reverse engineering of the ITVDigital encryption system by
an Israeli company controlled by Sky and the subsequent release to the
public domain of the hacked algorithms).

It also leads to the monopolistic manipulation by Sky of all satellite
reception equipment in the UK, the absence of competing equipment, the
lack of desired functionality and the requirement to pay several times
for functions that should be free anyway.

It also leads to the total disaster that is UK sport today.

Without the BBC and the licence fee all UK TV would be like Sky One
and you would have to pay even more for the Sky channels than you do
know.

I can't think of anything worse, except perhaps French or American TV,
from which may God preserve us all.

--
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:

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.

It does cost them money to give away set top boxes to millions of
people, though, and C4/C5 benefit from that.

Sky's choice, not C4/C5's.

The BBC and ITV benefit from it too. And they pay through the nose for
EPG places that cost Sky little or nothing to provide either.

--
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:

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.

If channels are paying for encryption then by definition they are
paying for security. Doesn't matter if they're FTV or pay, they both
want the same thing, and Sky's obligation to both is the same.

No, the FTV channels are paying for a simple method to ensure that
they are not easily viewable outside their allotted area. They don't
give a toss about security. Only pay channels care about this.

Indeed we have seen the FTV channels becoming FTA channels in order to
stop paying for unwanted security.

--
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?
 

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 09:32:44 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

No, the FTV channels are paying for a simple method to ensure that
they are not easily viewable outside their allotted area. They don't
give a toss about security. Only pay channels care about this.

If there is no security then they become 'easily viewable outside
their allotted area' and they're not getting what they pay for. It
would be totally wrong of Sky to discriminate against FTV channels in
favour of pay channels when they pay the same rates for the same
services. FTV channels should get a service every bit as good and as
secure as pay ones. Anything else would be unfair discrimination, and
you'd be the first to moan about it. Wouldn't you?

--

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Jomtien wrote:
Zero Tolerance wrote:

The most obvious example of this is Freeview. Up until 2001, all
digital TV equipment (satellite, cable or terrestrial) came with
encryption facilities which could easily have been used to ensure that
only people who wanted to watch the BBC had to pay for it.

Then the BBC piles into Freeview, encouraging manufacturers to flood
the market with cheap set top boxes with no encryption system at all.
A couple of years, and ten million set top boxes later, and once again
there is no possible way that the Government could decide to replace
the forced licence fee with a voluntary subscription. BBC wins again.

And rememember, the BBC admitted that this was their strategy.

Having seen the appalling anti-competitive disaster for viewers that
encrypted TV in the UK has always been, it comes as no surprise at all
that the non-pay channels would want as little as possible to do with
it. Me too.

Pay TV is a catastrophe that leads to the sort of programming that one
sees on Sky channels. You may think that this has some merit. (You may
also be brain damaged.) I certainly do not. There is nothing worth
watching on the Sky channels. The little that is worth watching on pay
TV is mostly made up of repeats of old BBC and independent programmes
previously shown for free on the terrestrial channels.

Forgetting, for the sake of argument, that the TV licence means that
all TV is pay TV, the fact is that many people do not share your view
that the BBC has higher quality programming than pay TV. IMO, there are
more decent programmes on ITV, C4 and C5 than on BBC (which just
possibly has fewer totally awful ones). I do not subscribe to Sky or
other pay TV channels so could not comment on those.


Pay TV also leads to the gross overcharging of non-Sky channels for
encryption services that they don't need or want, which was in fact
the main reason why the BBC "piled into Freeview" and also why they
instigated Freesat. It is also the reason why ITV have stopped
encrypting and why the C4 channels are looking also to change.


In other words, the BBC knew that they would run into trouble as soon
as they had to compete.

It also leads to the sort of shenanigans that caused ITVDigital to
collapse (reverse engineering of the ITVDigital encryption system by
an Israeli company controlled by Sky and the subsequent release to the
public domain of the hacked algorithms).

It also leads to the monopolistic manipulation by Sky of all satellite
reception equipment in the UK, the absence of competing equipment, the
lack of desired functionality and the requirement to pay several times
for functions that should be free anyway.

You don't like monopolies, but you are in favour of the licence fee??


It also leads to the total disaster that is UK sport today.

More foorball and cricket is broadcast live than used to be the case on
BBC.


Without the BBC and the licence fee all UK TV would be like Sky One
and you would have to pay even more for the Sky channels than you do
know.

I can't think of anything worse, except perhaps French or American TV,
from which may God preserve us all.


Have you watched any British or American TV over the past 20 years?
British TV is currently utter drivel.

Regards,
Arfur

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

In article .com,
Arfur Million wrote:


In other words, the BBC knew that they would run into trouble as soon
as they had to compete.

Interestingly, though, at the last Licence review, it was the ITV companies
who wanted it kept, on the basis if the BBC took advertising, there
wouldn't be enough left to support ITV.

--
From KT24 - in drought-ridden Surrey

Using a RISC OS5 computer

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

charles wrote:
In article .com,
Arfur Million wrote:


In other words, the BBC knew that they would run into trouble as soon
as they had to compete.

Interestingly, though, at the last Licence review, it was the ITV companies
who wanted it kept, on the basis if the BBC took advertising, there
wouldn't be enough left to support ITV.


That must have been on the assumption that if the BBC didn't have the
licence fee, then it would have to raise money by advertising, rather
than subscription.

Regards,
Arfur

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Arfur Million wrote:

Forgetting, for the sake of argument, that the TV licence means that
all TV is pay TV, the fact is that many people do not share your view
that the BBC has higher quality programming than pay TV. IMO, there are
more decent programmes on ITV, C4 and C5 than on BBC (which just
possibly has fewer totally awful ones).

The last time I looked ITV, C4 and C5 required no subscription. My
comments were relating to pay (Sky) and non-pay (FTA/FTV) channels. I
also think that the 3 channels mentioned are always better value and
often better quality than subscription channels.


Pay TV also leads to the gross overcharging of non-Sky channels for
encryption services that they don't need or want, which was in fact
the main reason why the BBC "piled into Freeview" and also why they
instigated Freesat. It is also the reason why ITV have stopped
encrypting and why the C4 channels are looking also to change.


In other words, the BBC knew that they would run into trouble as soon
as they had to compete.

That is your interpretation, not mine. The BBC were fed up with giving
tens of millions of pounds of licence-payers to Sky every year for a
"service" that was costing Sky nothing to provide. So they decided to
promote services that anyone can receive and that require no special
payments or proprietary equipment in order to do so, rather than to
continue broadcasting in a way that only serves to fill Sky's coffers.
It makes perfect sense to me.


You don't like monopolies, but you are in favour of the licence fee??

The BBC is not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination.
I am in favour of the licence fee simply because there is no other way
of ensuring that at least one broadcaster gets enough money to make
programmes that may not only appeal to the lowest common denominator
viewer.


It also leads to the total disaster that is UK sport today.

More foorball and cricket is broadcast live than used to be the case on
BBC.

But at what cost and what price?

Sport today is a fractured and totally money-driven enterprise.
No one can see more than a small proportion of events without paying a
huge amount for various subscriptions. And this money goes towards
paying absurdly high salaries to morons.

Mind you, as someone who detests all sport, I'm not personally
concerned about this at all except when the FTA/FTV channels bid for
expensive sporting rights and so waste money that could be spent on
something worthwhile. Luckily for me they mostly no longer bid for
these rights.


I can't think of anything worse, except perhaps French or American TV,
from which may God preserve us all.

Have you watched any British or American TV over the past 20 years?
British TV is currently utter drivel.

You must be watching the wrong 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:

No, the FTV channels are paying for a simple method to ensure that
they are not easily viewable outside their allotted area. They don't
give a toss about security. Only pay channels care about this.

If there is no security then they become 'easily viewable outside
their allotted area' and they're not getting what they pay for.

Anyone with £1 in his pocket can walk into any car boot sale anywhere
in Britain and pick up an FTV viewing card.

Anyone with any credit card and the temporary use of a UK address can
get a brand new FTV viewing card issued to him for £20.

Anyone with £20 (or currency equivalent) and no UK address at all can
just buy one on Ebay without ever setting foot in the UK.

All FTV cards will work in any box and never need reactivating.

There is NO security involved in this anywhere, nor do the FTV
broadcasters care at all. It is a sop.

If anything the move to FTA transmission on 2D is a more effective
means of preventing reception outside the UK than viewing cards ever
were as now there are huge areas of Europe in which it is simply no
longer possible to receive those transmissions at all, with or without
a card.


It
would be totally wrong of Sky to discriminate against FTV channels in
favour of pay channels when they pay the same rates for the same
services. FTV channels should get a service every bit as good and as
secure as pay ones.

But a service that they neither want nor need, hence their move away
to a free FTA arrangement.

--
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?
 

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 09:53:20 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

But a service that they neither want nor need, hence their move away
to a free FTA arrangement.

If you really believe that then you're not seeing the wider picture.
Basically both the BBC and ITV are having to pay increased costs in
programme rights now, so they've really just substituted one cost for
another. Doing it this way enables them to try to start some kind of
non-Sky "Freesat" system whereby they will - just like Freeview - be
the only entertainment channels in a small pond, safe from competition
from any subscription services.

That said, their heart really isn't in it - ITV has apparently gone
very cold on the idea indeed, and doesn't want to contribute to the
installation of ONE more satellite dish, because Freeview is still
such a licence to print money for them.

--

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Jomtien wrote:
Arfur Million wrote:

Forgetting, for the sake of argument, that the TV licence means that
all TV is pay TV, the fact is that many people do not share your view
that the BBC has higher quality programming than pay TV. IMO, there are
more decent programmes on ITV, C4 and C5 than on BBC (which just
possibly has fewer totally awful ones).

The last time I looked ITV, C4 and C5 required no subscription. My
comments were relating to pay (Sky) and non-pay (FTA/FTV) channels. I
also think that the 3 channels mentioned are always better value and
often better quality than subscription channels.

Fair enough, but the fact remains that many millions of people think it
worth paying for Sky channels, on top of the TV Licence, whatever you
or I may think about their output.



Pay TV also leads to the gross overcharging of non-Sky channels for
encryption services that they don't need or want, which was in fact
the main reason why the BBC "piled into Freeview" and also why they
instigated Freesat. It is also the reason why ITV have stopped
encrypting and why the C4 channels are looking also to change.


In other words, the BBC knew that they would run into trouble as soon
as they had to compete.

That is your interpretation, not mine. The BBC were fed up with giving
tens of millions of pounds of licence-payers to Sky every year for a
"service" that was costing Sky nothing to provide. So they decided to
promote services that anyone can receive and that require no special
payments or proprietary equipment in order to do so, rather than to
continue broadcasting in a way that only serves to fill Sky's coffers.
It makes perfect sense to me.


In the context of the BBC remaining publically funded, maybe. My
interpretation is that the BBC fears competition for revenue, and that
is the main reason that they did not go with encryption (via Sky or
otherwise).


You don't like monopolies, but you are in favour of the licence fee??

The BBC is not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination.

They do not monopolise the market, but they do monopolise the licence
fee.

I am in favour of the licence fee simply because there is no other way
of ensuring that at least one broadcaster gets enough money to make
programmes that may not only appeal to the lowest common denominator
viewer.



But that is exactly the sort of programmes the BBC makes nowadays.
Everything they broadcast is dumbed down to the nth degree. Their
science documentaries are abysmal (slight exception for the nicely
photographed wildlife progs, but they are not the only ones doing that
and they never really analyse the topic in much detail); their news
service is very poor (and inferior to what little I have seen of Sky
news); their arts programmes are a little better but still not much
cop, and the rest is lame comedies or weak dramas, or makeovers, or
Eastenders, or cooking programmes (rant continues on p94)

It also leads to the total disaster that is UK sport today.

More foorball and cricket is broadcast live than used to be the case on
BBC.

But at what cost and what price?

Sport today is a fractured and totally money-driven enterprise.
No one can see more than a small proportion of events without paying a
huge amount for various subscriptions. And this money goes towards
paying absurdly high salaries to morons.

Unlike the entirely reasonable salaries that morons like Clarkson,
Wogan and Anne Robinson get (well, they can't be that moronic to earn
what they do)?

Nowadays live sport is available on TV - like it or loathe it - much
more than used to be the case with good old Grandstand.


Mind you, as someone who detests all sport, I'm not personally
concerned about this at all except when the FTA/FTV channels bid for
expensive sporting rights and so waste money that could be spent on
something worthwhile. Luckily for me they mostly no longer bid for
these rights.


I like sport, but I agree with much of what you say. For those who like
it, sport should be played, not just watched on telly.


I can't think of anything worse, except perhaps French or American TV,
from which may God preserve us all.

Have you watched any British or American TV over the past 20 years?
British TV is currently utter drivel.

You must be watching the wrong channels.


I haven't watched much at all in recent years - I get my TV Licence and
started watching again last month and am already regretting it
(admittedly the summer months are always worse). I guess it comes down
to taste in the end, and I don't suppose that I will convince a regular
contributor to this group like yourself (hence almost by definition a
TV enthusiast) that the quality of TV is as utterly terrible as I see
it. However, perhaps you can understand that for someone like myself
whose meagre telly needs would easily be satisfied by what's on ITV, C4
and C5 that it really rankles at having to pay the same as everyone
else for a service that I view as dreadful.

British TV *is* awful, and travel to the US regularly enough to make
the comparison with that country's output - and I would say that what
they have is currently better (comparing basic service for basic
service). I would not have dreamt of saying that 20 years ago.

Regards,
Arfur

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Arfur Million wrote:

Fair enough, but the fact remains that many millions of people think it
worth paying for Sky channels, on top of the TV Licence, whatever you
or I may think about their output.

Millions of people eat Pot Noodles. That doesn't make them taste nice.


The BBC is not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination.

They do not monopolise the market, but they do monopolise the licence
fee.

If you use that definition then everything purchased anywhere at any
time is a monopoly. Which clearly isn't the case.


I am in favour of the licence fee simply because there is no other way
of ensuring that at least one broadcaster gets enough money to make
programmes that may not only appeal to the lowest common denominator
viewer.



But that is exactly the sort of programmes the BBC makes nowadays.
Everything they broadcast is dumbed down to the nth degree. Their
science documentaries are abysmal (slight exception for the nicely
photographed wildlife progs, but they are not the only ones doing that
and they never really analyse the topic in much detail); their news
service is very poor (and inferior to what little I have seen of Sky
news); their arts programmes are a little better but still not much
cop, and the rest is lame comedies or weak dramas, or makeovers, or
Eastenders, or cooking programmes (rant continues on p94)

Along with all the dross there are still many worthwhile programmes
made by or for the BBC.

--
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:

But a service that they neither want nor need, hence their move away
to a free FTA arrangement.

If you really believe that then you're not seeing the wider picture.
Basically both the BBC and ITV are having to pay increased costs in
programme rights now, so they've really just substituted one cost for
another.

So you say. I've seen no figures to back this up. On the contrary, the
only solid information that I ever saw released came from Disney who
stated quite clearly that they wouldn't be looking for more money from
the BBC now that it is FTA on 2D.


Doing it this way enables them to try to start some kind of
non-Sky "Freesat" system whereby they will - just like Freeview - be
the only entertainment channels in a small pond, safe from competition
from any subscription services.

The last time I looked (yesterday) there were many FTA channels on the
Sky platform. The BBC and ITV are not alone.


That said, their heart really isn't in it - ITV has apparently gone
very cold on the idea indeed, and doesn't want to contribute to the
installation of ONE more satellite dish,

And why should they contribute to this any more than they should
contribute to the purchase of Freeview receivers? I see no reason why
viewers shouldn't buy their own equipment and, if there are some
pensioners somewhere who really can't afford it, then the government
can subsidise it for them via social security.


because Freeview is still
such a licence to print money for them.

Which presumably supposes that Freeview is in fact very popular.
Probably because it requires no subscription.

I'm not the only person who won't pay a subscription to watch TV. More
than 1 in 2 Britons think as I do.

--
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?
 

In article ,
Jomtien wrote:
Zero Tolerance wrote:

But a service that they neither want nor need, hence their move away
to a free FTA arrangement.

If you really believe that then you're not seeing the wider picture.
Basically both the BBC and ITV are having to pay increased costs in
programme rights now, so they've really just substituted one cost for
another.

So you say. I've seen no figures to back this up. On the contrary, the
only solid information that I ever saw released came from Disney who
stated quite clearly that they wouldn't be looking for more money from
the BBC now that it is FTA on 2D.

But if you look at the costs of getting rights to sporting events, you will
find that since Sky came into the market these have rocketed upwards.

--
From KT24 - in drought-ridden Surrey

Using a RISC OS5 computer

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

In article , Jomtien wrote:
But that is exactly the sort of programmes the BBC makes nowadays.
Everything they broadcast is dumbed down to the nth degree. Their
science documentaries are abysmal (slight exception for the nicely
photographed wildlife progs, but they are not the only ones doing that
and they never really analyse the topic in much detail); their news
service is very poor (and inferior to what little I have seen of Sky
news); their arts programmes are a little better but still not much
cop, and the rest is lame comedies or weak dramas, or makeovers, or
Eastenders, or cooking programmes (rant continues on p94)

Along with all the dross there are still many worthwhile programmes
made by or for the BBC.

There are a few, but for how much longer? If the BBC continues to emulate
their commercial competition they will eventually become indistinguishable
from it, and the argument for funding the BBC in a different way will lose
any last vestige of validity. Then it'll *all* be rubbish.

Rod.

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 06:57:59 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

|In article , Jomtien wrote:
| But that is exactly the sort of programmes the BBC makes nowadays.
| Everything they broadcast is dumbed down to the nth degree. Their
| science documentaries are abysmal (slight exception for the nicely
| photographed wildlife progs, but they are not the only ones doing that
| and they never really analyse the topic in much detail); their news
| service is very poor (and inferior to what little I have seen of Sky
| news); their arts programmes are a little better but still not much
| cop, and the rest is lame comedies or weak dramas, or makeovers, or
| Eastenders, or cooking programmes (rant continues on p94)
|
| Along with all the dross there are still many worthwhile programmes
| made by or for the BBC.
|
|There are a few, but for how much longer? If the BBC continues to emulate
|their commercial competition they will eventually become indistinguishable
|from it, and the argument for funding the BBC in a different way will lose
|any last vestige of validity. Then it'll *all* be rubbish.

As a counter example, the Beeb's Flagship Wildlife programs and Costume
Dramas, not to mention Dr Who, make a large profit, from sales overseas.
They will continue into the foreseeable future.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Jomtien wrote:
Arfur Million wrote:

Fair enough, but the fact remains that many millions of people think it
worth paying for Sky channels, on top of the TV Licence, whatever you
or I may think about their output.

Millions of people eat Pot Noodles. That doesn't make them taste nice.


So would you put a tax on Pot Noodles in order to subsidise those who
eat pate de foie gras (or, more analogously with the BBC, those who eat
McDonald's)?


The BBC is not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination.

They do not monopolise the market, but they do monopolise the licence
fee.

If you use that definition then everything purchased anywhere at any
time is a monopoly. Which clearly isn't the case.


Not at all. Generally the money spent on purchasing a product does not
go to one of the vendor's competitors. Someone who takes out a contract
with Sky does not give money to NTL. But someone who watches ITV must
pay the BBC. It's the "unique way we're funded", you know.


I am in favour of the licence fee simply because there is no other way
of ensuring that at least one broadcaster gets enough money to make
programmes that may not only appeal to the lowest common denominator
viewer.



But that is exactly the sort of programmes the BBC makes nowadays.
Everything they broadcast is dumbed down to the nth degree. Their
science documentaries are abysmal (slight exception for the nicely
photographed wildlife progs, but they are not the only ones doing that
and they never really analyse the topic in much detail); their news
service is very poor (and inferior to what little I have seen of Sky
news); their arts programmes are a little better but still not much
cop, and the rest is lame comedies or weak dramas, or makeovers, or
Eastenders, or cooking programmes (rant continues on p94)

Along with all the dross there are still many worthwhile programmes
made by or for the BBC.


Your opinion, not mine. The overwhelming majority of the BBC's output
is made up of the type of programming that is freely available on other
channels, and in any case could not be described as public service
broadcasting. Whether or not we consider this output to be good, bad or
indifferent there is no reason for public money to be spent on it.

Regards,
Arfur

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Jomtien
All FTV cards will work in any box and never need reactivating.

No, they only work in the substandard POSes with the Sky logo on them
or in hacked-up CI modules which are arguably circumvention devices.

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

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

On 4 Jun 2006 12:56:39 -0700, "Arfur Million"
wrote:

But that is exactly the sort of programmes the BBC makes nowadays.
Everything they broadcast is dumbed down to the nth degree. Their
science documentaries are abysmal (slight exception for the nicely
photographed wildlife progs, but they are not the only ones doing that
and they never really analyse the topic in much detail); their news
service is very poor (and inferior to what little I have seen of Sky
news); their arts programmes are a little better but still not much
cop, and the rest is lame comedies or weak dramas, or makeovers, or
Eastenders, or cooking programmes (rant continues on p94)

Hear hear. It's bad enough that the commercial "public service"
channels are dishing out so much crap, it's worse that the BBC sinks
to their level. That is NOT what we pay them for.

--

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 07:14:52 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

So you say. I've seen no figures to back this up.

A 6% supplement is the going rate, apparently.

Doing it this way enables them to try to start some kind of
non-Sky "Freesat" system whereby they will - just like Freeview - be
the only entertainment channels in a small pond, safe from competition
from any subscription services.

The last time I looked (yesterday) there were many FTA channels on the
Sky platform. The BBC and ITV are not alone.

Yes, but the vast majority of FTA channels are shopping or quiz
channels. There are very few properly funded 'entertainment' channels
which would pose any threat to the BBC or ITV.

because Freeview is still
such a licence to print money for them.

Which presumably supposes that Freeview is in fact very popular.
Probably because it requires no subscription.

Probably because (if you're lucky enough not to need a new aerial)
it's cheap. However, Freeview is a licence to print money for the
terrestrials because it's a cosy arrangement where the amount of
channels is strictly limited, and the majority of additional channels
that might be a threat to the BBC, ITV, C4, Five, etc, are actually
provided by BBC, ITV, C4, Five, etc.

I'm not the only person who won't pay a subscription to watch TV. More
than 1 in 2 Britons think as I do.

If BBC, ITV, C4 and Five are all they want to watch, then that's up to
them. Subscription services will always be an available alternative
for people who are dissatisfied with the same old stuff from the usual
suspects and want something more. And millions do.
--

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

In article , Dave Fawthrop wrote:
| Along with all the dross there are still many worthwhile programmes
| made by or for the BBC.
|
|There are a few, but for how much longer? If the BBC continues to emulate
|their commercial competition they will eventually become indistinguishable
|from it, and the argument for funding the BBC in a different way will lose
|any last vestige of validity. Then it'll *all* be rubbish.

As a counter example, the Beeb's Flagship Wildlife programs and Costume
Dramas, not to mention Dr Who, make a large profit, from sales overseas.
They will continue into the foreseeable future.

I hope so. The ones you mention, the Proms, and some of the documentaries on
BBC4 are about the only things left that make the BBC worthwhile. However, if
the BBC can only survive because they can make profits through sales rather
than providing a broadcasting service, will they really be fulfilling their
duty to the licence payers? In fact, will they really be broadcasters at all?

Rod.

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

charles wrote:

So you say. I've seen no figures to back this up. On the contrary, the
only solid information that I ever saw released came from Disney who
stated quite clearly that they wouldn't be looking for more money from
the BBC now that it is FTA on 2D.

But if you look at the costs of getting rights to sporting events, you will
find that since Sky came into the market these have rocketed upwards.

Surely, but this has nothing to do with the BBC being FTA.

--
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:

So you say. I've seen no figures to back this up.

A 6% supplement is the going rate, apparently.

Why not say 10 or 20 or 90?

The only concrete figure that I'm aware of is 0 from Disney.

--
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?
 

Arfur Million wrote:

Fair enough, but the fact remains that many millions of people think it
worth paying for Sky channels, on top of the TV Licence, whatever you
or I may think about their output.

Millions of people eat Pot Noodles. That doesn't make them taste nice.


So would you put a tax on Pot Noodles in order to subsidise those who
eat pate de foie gras (or, more analogously with the BBC, those who eat
McDonald's)?

No, but I would tax Pot Noodles if there was a danger of there being
no alternative.


The BBC is not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination.

They do not monopolise the market, but they do monopolise the licence
fee.

If you use that definition then everything purchased anywhere at any
time is a monopoly. Which clearly isn't the case.


Not at all. Generally the money spent on purchasing a product does not
go to one of the vendor's competitors. Someone who takes out a contract
with Sky does not give money to NTL. But someone who watches ITV must
pay the BBC. It's the "unique way we're funded", you know.

Maybe, but that is not the definition of a monopoly.

Many countries have licence fees for the ex-state broadcasters. Most
of them are much worse value than the UK one. Take France for example:
an £80 licence fee that pays for a small selection of decidedly
mediocre TV channels all of which carry adverts also. And all of which
are officially pay channels on digital satellite. It's nice to see the
French being ripped off so soundly by their government.


Your opinion, not mine. The overwhelming majority of the BBC's output
is made up of the type of programming that is freely available on other
channels,

This just isn't 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?
 

Roderick Stewart wrote:

Along with all the dross there are still many worthwhile programmes
made by or for the BBC.

There are a few, but for how much longer? If the BBC continues to emulate
their commercial competition they will eventually become indistinguishable
from it, and the argument for funding the BBC in a different way will lose
any last vestige of validity. Then it'll *all* be rubbish.

That may well be the case. Scrapping the licence fee would probably
only hasten this though.

--
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?
 

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 07:25:44 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

Zero Tolerance wrote:

So you say. I've seen no figures to back this up.

A 6% supplement is the going rate, apparently.

Why not say 10 or 20 or 90?

Because the going rate is 6%, at least according to the public
statements made recently in relation to sports rights bidding.

The only concrete figure that I'm aware of is 0 from Disney.

That was never a concrete figure - and they didn't say that they
wouldn't charge extra, just that they would not object. There's much
that goes on behind closed doors.

--

FilmFour free on Sky?
 

Jomtien wrote:
Arfur Million wrote:

Fair enough, but the fact remains that many millions of people think it
worth paying for Sky channels, on top of the TV Licence, whatever you
or I may think about their output.

Millions of people eat Pot Noodles. That doesn't make them taste nice.


So would you put a tax on Pot Noodles in order to subsidise those who
eat pate de foie gras (or, more analogously with the BBC, those who eat
McDonald's)?

No, but I would tax Pot Noodles if there was a danger of there being
no alternative.


Since there are multitudinous alternatives to BBC channels, no need for
a special tax there, then.


The BBC is not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination.

They do not monopolise the market, but they do monopolise the licence
fee.

If you use that definition then everything purchased anywhere at any
time is a monopoly. Which clearly isn't the case.


Not at all. Generally the money spent on purchasing a product does not
go to one of the vendor's competitors. Someone who takes out a contract
with Sky does not give money to NTL. But someone who watches ITV must
pay the BBC. It's the "unique way we're funded", you know.

Maybe, but that is not the definition of a monopoly.


OK, but let us say what it is then: the TV licence is a massive income
that allows one organisation to have a large effect on broadcasting as
a whole. The income is guaranteed, regardsless of how efficient or
successful that organisation is in meeting its aims. Since people are
willing to pay this money for that particular market (even if they do
not use that particular product), it follows that this money is
diverted from other broadcasters that could be more innovative than the
BBC (hardly a difficult task to achieve), so the effect of the TV
licence is to stifle competition.

Incidentally, various acts of parliament (1973 Fair Trading Act and
1980 Competition Act) define a monopoly as existing when one company
controls more than 25%; if the BBC isn't getting near this with the
advantages that it has, then maybe some serious questions should be
asked about what it is doing with the money.

Many countries have licence fees for the ex-state broadcasters. Most
of them are much worse value than the UK one. Take France for example:
an £80 licence fee that pays for a small selection of decidedly
mediocre TV channels all of which carry adverts also. And all of which
are officially pay channels on digital satellite. It's nice to see the
French being ripped off so soundly by their government.


Evidently another country where the TV Licence fails.


Your opinion, not mine. The overwhelming majority of the BBC's output
is made up of the type of programming that is freely available on other
channels,

This just isn't so.


I wish.

Regards,
Arfur