All that Jaz
 

On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 03:34:34 +0000, Bill Wright wrote:

Yes and their elected government decided to sell them off to the
highest bidder...

A demonstration of the limitations of democracy.

Thatcher led the way and Cameroon meekly followed!



--
M0WYM
Sales @ radiowymsey
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/
http://sales-at-radio-wymsey.ebid.net/

All that Jaz
 

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
If you are unable to follow an argument it doesn't mean that the
person delivering it is drunk. There could be other reasons...

True. You don't have to be drunk to talk rubbish.


You don't have to have to be sober to outwit someone who seems unable to
think logically.

At least you have that right.

--
*If a mute swears, does his mother wash his hands with soap?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

All that Jaz
 

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
tim..... wrote:

they offered to pay more than the next contestant, for it
And yet those airwaves belong to the people.
Yes and their elected government decided to sell them off to the
highest bidder...
A demonstration of the limitations of democracy.
So what would you have a continuation of 405 line monochrome TV?
The successive stages of development of PSB in the UK were not, until
quite recently, determined exclusively by market forces.

Bill

So which side of this fence are you on?

A. Government should allocate all frequencies on the basis of perceived
need.

or

B. All allocations should be decided by tender.

obviously we actually have something somewhere in between
Something in between is fine, except that at present it's skewed towards
the free market and away from PSB principles. This country has always had
problems finding sensible compromises between market and public-good
principles. In the 60s it was too far one way; post-Thatch it was too far
the other.

Bill

You obviously forget when there was no [domestic] competition, Radio
Luxembourg was in it heyday advertising gambling etc. and pirate radio
stations were set up off shore. Eventually the government got around to
creating Radio 1 and local radio stations, but not before Kenny Everett, Kid
Jensen and David Blackburn (oops!) had become popular...

Similarly the GPO exercised a vice like monopoly on telecoms. It wasn't
privatisation that ended this, but the introduction of competition.

All that Jaz
 

Wymsey wrote:

As for immigrants - that's what we all are!

In the context of the present situation, where we have the long-standing
cultural values of the indigenous population threatened by the very
different values of an alien race, that statement is ridiculous.

This 'we are all immigrants' mantra is just stupid.

Bill

All that Jaz
 

R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
tim..... wrote:

they offered to pay more than the next contestant, for it
And yet those airwaves belong to the people.
Yes and their elected government decided to sell them off to the
highest bidder...
A demonstration of the limitations of democracy.
So what would you have a continuation of 405 line monochrome TV?
The successive stages of development of PSB in the UK were not, until
quite recently, determined exclusively by market forces.

Bill
So which side of this fence are you on?

A. Government should allocate all frequencies on the basis of perceived
need.

or

B. All allocations should be decided by tender.

obviously we actually have something somewhere in between
Something in between is fine, except that at present it's skewed towards
the free market and away from PSB principles. This country has always had
problems finding sensible compromises between market and public-good
principles. In the 60s it was too far one way; post-Thatch it was too far
the other.

Bill

You obviously forget when there was no [domestic] competition, Radio
Luxembourg was in it heyday advertising gambling etc. and pirate radio
stations were set up off shore. Eventually the government got around to
creating Radio 1 and local radio stations, but not before Kenny Everett, Kid
Jensen and David Blackburn (oops!) had become popular...

You must have misunderstood me. What you've said are examples of what I
said.

Bill

All that Jaz
 

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
Wymsey wrote:

As for immigrants - that's what we all are!

In the context of the present situation, where we have the long-standing
cultural values of the indigenous population threatened by the very
different values of an alien race, that statement is ridiculous.

This 'we are all immigrants' mantra is just stupid.

Did laugh out loud at your use of "mantra" there after the tosh in your
previous assertion. :-)

At least that provided some light relief from the narrow predictability of
your many, many, many postings on the same few OT themes which seem to
obsess you. Alas I have the impression that you've grown so anxious to
peddle your views that you no longer think about what you are actually
saying at times. As per the above ludicrous example.

Wish you'd stick to more on-topic or interesting content and drop the OT
hobby horses. TBH I don't think you're doing yourself or the group any
favours.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

All that Jaz
 

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
SNIP

obviously we actually have something somewhere in between
Something in between is fine, except that at present it's skewed towards
the free market and away from PSB principles. This country has always
had problems finding sensible compromises between market and public-good
principles. In the 60s it was too far one way; post-Thatch it was too
far the other.

Bill

You obviously forget when there was no [domestic] competition, Radio
Luxembourg was in it heyday advertising gambling etc. and pirate radio
stations were set up off shore. Eventually the government got around to
creating Radio 1 and local radio stations, but not before Kenny Everett,
Kid Jensen and David Blackburn (oops!) had become popular...

You must have misunderstood me. What you've said are examples of what I
said.

Bill

Indeed. I also said

Similarly the GPO exercised a vice like monopoly on telecoms. It wasn't
privatisation that ended this, but the introduction of competition.


Which happened under Thatcher

Prior to competition most call charges were many times what they are now

Local - ~same
Short - now ~1p/min; then 10p (~= 30p/min now)
national - now ~1p/min; then 12p (~= 35p/min now)
USA - now ~1.5p/min; then 60p (~= £2/min now)

The government also imposed an unusual model for the introduction of
cellular phone services, where you had to have an intermediary between you
and the network provider. At the time I thought this was mad and would just
line the pockets of innumerable middle men, however with hindsight it
actually allowed for the fastest proliferation* cellular technology of any
country in the world except the Channel Islands and Sweden (who started
sooner with 450MHz coverage in their frozen north). Compare the UK with
France in the early nineties

France UK
Portable handset £2k £500 75% fall in UK since
introduction in 1986
Rental £30 £25 French coverage
only one region; national coverage much more
Inbound 10p+ free
Outbound 50p 25p

in the UK this meant that they progressed from being rich men's toys to
being carried by most tradesmen (plumbers etc.)





* because the intermediaries DID create a competitive market for airtime and
handsets in a way that individual users never could.

All that Jaz
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 12:12:28 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
wrote:



in the UK this meant that they progressed from being rich men's toys to
being carried by most tradesmen (plumbers etc.)


And cheap enough to buy your own to bypass an old fashioned management
who regarded such things as a status perk of the job rather than a
work tool.
While the suggestions that our pagers should be replaced by phones
were batted back and forth by office bound managers frightened that we
may get something they could not justify having themselves we got fed
up,found a salesman and did a deal ourselves.
Management were furious and one even threatened to ban us carrying
them though the practicalities of enforcing such a ban became obvious
after I had some discussions with him.
They still passed the jobs out by pager but the time saved by using
the phone to ring the customer and check they were available rather
than find a phone box to do it will be appreciated by anybody doing
service work before the mobile.

G.Harman

Not just the management.

When a Tory chancellor was annoyed by people answering mobile phones while
he dined at posh restaurants, he introduced a £200 per annum charge for the
privilege of having a mobile phone. By the time he did this rentals had
already fallen below £200pa, so it was just spite that ordinary people could
afford them.

All that Jaz
 

On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 20:13:54 +0000, Bill Wright wrote:

This 'we are all immigrants' mantra is just stupid.

This use of 'mantra' is just stupid, especially if you understand the
correct use of the word.


--
M0WYM
Sales @ radiowymsey
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/
http://sales-at-radio-wymsey.ebid.net/

All that Jaz
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:

At least that provided some light relief from the narrow predictability of
your many, many, many postings on the same few OT themes which seem to
obsess you. Alas I have the impression that you've grown so anxious to
peddle your views that you no longer think about what you are actually
saying at times. As per the above ludicrous example.

Instead of an ad hominem attack [(C) Jim!] why don't you refute what I
say? Why don't you find a BBC news item where (a) they admit that the
'ship of fools', now stuck in the ice, was a BBC/ABC/Guardian venture
designed to collect evidence of the retreat of the Antarctic ice (b)
they show the footage of the same area 100 years ago, ice free (c)
explain why a 'research' expedition has so many journalists on board
(all of them from leftist outfits like the BBC) (d) mention that the
Antarctic ice has actually increased of late, hence the ship's plight
(e) mention that the expedition's leader runs a company that makes money
from 'reducing carbon levels'.

Bill