Half choice Freeview transmitters
 

On 2012-06-18, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , J G Miller
wrote:

... liberal-bourgeois democratic.

What does this mean?

It's a special code-phrase to let you know J G Miller is a ****.

--
David Taylor

Half choice Freeview transmitters
 

On Monday, June 18th, 2012, at 17:07:58h +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , J G Miller
wrote:

... liberal-bourgeois democratic.

What does this mean?

It means that ultimately politicians will only fight for the
rights of the bourgeoisie, or whoever has donated the most
to their election campaign.

What do you think Mitt Romney was really saying when he stated
that he was not concerned about the very poor?

Do you think that he is fighting for their rights?

Do you think that David Cameron is fighting for the
rights of the oppressed, the poor, the welfare recipient,
the unemployed, the security guard on minimum wage?

Half choice Freeview transmitters
 

Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 00:25:13 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

J G Miller wrote:

that you may not install an antenna of length greater than 600 mm
on a residential chimney (both buildings less than or greather than
15 m in height)
That's a bungle caused by the imbeciles who make the laws using antenna
when the mean dish.

The imbeciles who make the laws had to use a word that would include
non-dishy antennas, such as the squarial or (if someone ever builds one)
an antenna using a fresnel reflector.


Well they made a bad choice. Word choice should always bear in mind
popular usage. Using a word for 'satellite dish' that is never applied
to a satellite dish and is commonly applied to something completely
different is just plan bad drafting. If they wanted to do it better they
could have said 'satellite dish or other apparatus used to receive
satellite signals.' But that would have exposed the absurdity of it,
because people would say 'Why differentiate planning rules dependent on
an irrelevance: the source of the signals?'

Bill

Half choice Freeview transmitters
 

In message , Bill Wright
writes
Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 00:25:13 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

J G Miller wrote:

that you may not install an antenna of length greater than 600 mm
on a residential chimney (both buildings less than or greather than
15 m in height)
That's a bungle caused by the imbeciles who make the laws using
antenna when the mean dish.

The imbeciles who make the laws had to use a word that would include
non-dishy antennas, such as the squarial or (if someone ever builds one)
an antenna using a fresnel reflector.

Well they made a bad choice. Word choice should always bear in mind
popular usage. Using a word for 'satellite dish' that is never applied
to a satellite dish and is commonly applied to something completely
different is just plan bad drafting. If they wanted to do it better
they could have said 'satellite dish or other apparatus used to receive
satellite signals.' But that would have exposed the absurdity of it,
because people would say 'Why differentiate planning rules dependent on
an irrelevance: the source of the signals?'

The only objection I can see to the all-embracing use of "antenna" is
that we UKians usually call it an aerial.
--
Ian

Half choice Freeview transmitters
 

In message , J G Miller
wrote

Do you always compare tangerines with tomatoes?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcHKm0cm-jI
--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Half choice Freeview transmitters
 

In article , says...

On Monday, June 18th, 2012, at 13:56:53h +0100, Yellow explained:

Never said it was - does chance the basic fact some people can receive it,
others cannot.

No it does not change the fact. It has always been the case that some
people can receive some TV stations and not others.

Did you complain that people in Ynys Mon or vaste swathes of
Kent and Hampshire, or the Orkney, Shetland, or Channel Islands
could not receive analog Channel 5?

My Mum was one of the people who could not C5, and yes, I *did*
complain.



See all the white bits on the map at

http://about.channel5.COM/files/images/template9/master_0000_analogue_midres.jpg

You are trying to teach granny to such eggs.


You are blaming the "victims"? Not cool.

I am basically pointing out that in many cases people brought it
upon themselves, if you accept that Westminster Parliamentary
elections of government are liberal-bourgeois democratic.

No, I do not accept that - not at all - unless you can show me (and you
cannot) a manifesto that stated ahead of the election that voting for a
particular party would mean particular deals would be struck that would
lead to creation of a two tier freeview service.

This is the sort of thing you find out about years after the agreements
are signed and sealed, when you realised that the information you have
been given about the rollout of a service doesn't seem to align with
what other people are talking about.

So, you are still trying to blame the people for whom this is all
completely outside of their control. And that still isn't cool.


It could quite simply have been a term of the agreements made when the
frequences were sold.

The tv broadcast frequencies were not sold, but licensed.

The licences were sold.


The government is still "considering" (but perhaps not actively)
whether or not to sell off the tv broadcast frequencies as a one
off deal (ie a broadcast licence without termination date)
(and I do not mean those that have been re-allocated for other
transmission purpoises.)

Half choice Freeview transmitters
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 13:52:25 +0100, "Yellow" wrote:


"Scott" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 21:18:34 +0100, Yellow wrote:

In article , says...

On Sunday, June 17th, 2012, at 15:36:04h +0100, Yellow wrote:

That does not help people who have aerial based Digital TV equipment,
not satellite.

So what help do you want?

It is an unfair situation, that everyone pays the same price but some
people get a "lite" service while everyone else gets the full banana.

What 'price' are you thinking of? If you are thinking of the TV
licence fee, I think you will find that all the licence fee funded
services are available from all the transmitters.

I picked that word carefully. We all pay, be it through the licence or
advertising or just general taxation and those who only receive the lite
service pay just the same as everyone else.

Who pays by general taxation?

If those who receive the lite service buy the same goods (which may be
a questionable assumption) the cost on a per viewer basis for the
advertisers must be much higher to include relays than by sticking to
the main transmitters (which apparently reach 90% of the population)
so those in 'lite' areas would need to spend a lot more to justify
extending the service.

You think that the tv services an individual receives should be directly
proportional to the cost of providing the service to that individual?

Half choice Freeview transmitters
 

Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Bill Wright
writes
Well they made a bad choice. Word choice should always bear in mind
popular usage. Using a word for 'satellite dish' that is never applied
to a satellite dish and is commonly applied to something completely
different is just plan bad drafting. If they wanted to do it better
they could have said 'satellite dish or other apparatus used to
receive satellite signals.' But that would have exposed the absurdity
of it, because people would say 'Why differentiate planning rules
dependent on an irrelevance: the source of the signals?'

The only objection I can see to the all-embracing use of "antenna" is
that we UKians usually call it an aerial.

I intend to use the phrase "satellite dish antenna" when I write up my
webpage on calculating the focal length of offset dishes. That's
because I think the page will get more hits if I include the word
"antenna" - assuming it gets any hits at all, that is. :-)

--
John L

Half choice Freeview transmitters
 

On Monday, June 18th, 2012, at 23:16:41h +0100, Yellow wrote:

No, I do not accept that - not at all - unless you can show me (and you
cannot) a manifesto that stated ahead of the election that voting for a
particular party would mean particular deals would be struck that would
lead to creation of a two tier freeview service.

You have to remember that FauX LaboUr did not want Freeview at all
but intended that digital television be primarily a subscription
service, because in that way the the commerical companies
make larger profits and the government would get a slice of the action
from VAT.

If On Digital had not gone bankrupt, "Freeview" would only be
the BBC stations plus the Channel 3 service, S4C or Channel 4,
Five, and maybe ITV-2.

As to the intentions of the political parties, were not the
principles of the Communications Act laid out in the party
manifesto? Certainly the intentions of the C&UP with respect
to broadcasting were made abundantly clear by Jeremy Hunt
for a number of years before the 2007 election.

Half choice Freeview transmitters
 

In article , says...

On Monday, June 18th, 2012, at 23:16:41h +0100, Yellow wrote:

No, I do not accept that - not at all - unless you can show me (and you
cannot) a manifesto that stated ahead of the election that voting for a
particular party would mean particular deals would be struck that would
lead to creation of a two tier freeview service.

You have to remember that FauX LaboUr did not want Freeview at all
but intended that digital television be primarily a subscription
service, because in that way the the commerical companies
make larger profits and the government would get a slice of the action
from VAT.

Whatever - because that does not change the situation as it currently
stands nor does it have any bearing on the point under discussion.


If On Digital had not gone bankrupt, "Freeview" would only be
the BBC stations plus the Channel 3 service, S4C or Channel 4,
Five, and maybe ITV-2.

See above.

As to the intentions of the political parties, were not the
principles of the Communications Act laid out in the party
manifesto? Certainly the intentions of the C&UP with respect
to broadcasting were made abundantly clear by Jeremy Hunt
for a number of years before the 2007 election.

If you find it, please share.