|
|
Charging for iPlayer
On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 10:06:23 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote: I think it was you No it was me. that suggested "all equipment". (See above). If anything like this ever does make its way into law, it'll need to be a bit more specific than that. A wanted to give a one-liner, not something with the legalese of a green paper! The current law doesn't cover all television apparatus, does it? Only apparatus *installed* to receive TV ... so I wouldn't expect a revised law to include all computers, tablets, phones, washing machines etc, any more than the current law includes a TV connected only to a CCTV camera. Fair enough, and when I said "anything with a screen" I assumed it would be taken to mean anything with a screen which is used to watch material provided by somebody else, and even that would only be an outline of what an actual law would say, if it ever got that far. They currently pop-up a warning in iPlayer to say you need a licence for live programmes, but not for catch-up, so why not just get it extended to catch-up? As for catching people out, presumably they already log IP addresses (not infallible) and plant cookies to track devices and what they've watched, so we won't need PC detector vans ... There is a very worrying trend towards snoopage being enabled by default, simply because the equipment we use for nearly all communications nowadays happens to be capable of it, and not because anybody has come up with any moral justification for it or offered it for consideration through any democratic process. It's quite startling to see drama plots from only a few years ago in which people can walk about or drive cars in public places without being recorded on CCTV, or hold telephone conversations without anybody knowing about them. Already there seem to be certain opinions it isn't possible to express out loud, at least if you're a celebrity, a politician or a scientist, so I wonder how long this blight on freedom will spread to the rest of us, and whose approval we will have to seek before we say anything? It's not paranoia if they're *really* spying on you... Rod. |
Charging for iPlayer
On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 12:38:40 +0200, Martin wrote:
Something like an annual licence fee perhaps? Yes, I just want the current scheme to cover all equipment. Really? You want to be obliged to pay the BBC just to be allowed to look at anything with a screen? You prefer to pay somebody like Murdoch? There's plenty of TV material to watch without paying Murdoch. Rod. |
Charging for iPlayer
On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 09:27:05 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote: In article , Paul Ratcliffe wrote: On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 15:18:10 +0100, Jim Lesurf wrote: The simplest approach is to treat it like roads, pavements, etc. Assume everyone directly or indirectly makes use of them, so charge each household the same amount regardless. What's it got to do with households? People use services, not houses. Charge the people. Same for the roads and other services. household is not a synonym for house. Jim True. http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dic...lish/household household the people living together in one house collectively -- Peter Duncanson (in uk.tech.digital-tv) |
Charging for iPlayer
In article , Martin
wrote: The advantage of a 'flat per household per year charge' is that it avoids all the effort/expense/argument that otherwise would end up devoted to trying to determine who watched what, when, where, etc. Even simpler is to fund public broadcasting from the infra structure like the Dutch do. The potential disadvantage being that it could allow the Government of the day a more direct control over funding in shorter timescales. That would save £150 million a year in enforcing licence payments plus the cost of time wasting prosecutions in overloaded courts. Which could instead be charged to those found by courts to have failed to obtain a license. The fines/levy costs on those who can pay may help cover the costs of those who can't. 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 |
Charging for iPlayer
On 07/07/2015 12:53, Peter Duncanson wrote:
True. http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dic...lish/household household the people living together in one house collectively Interesting definition. In that it excludes any families living in flats... Andy |
Charging for iPlayer
On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 14:37:40 +0200, Martin wrote:
Something like an annual licence fee perhaps? Yes, I just want the current scheme to cover all equipment. Really? You want to be obliged to pay the BBC just to be allowed to look at anything with a screen? You prefer to pay somebody like Murdoch? There's plenty of TV material to watch without paying Murdoch. ATM Longer than that. Murdoch owns a lot but not the entire planet. Rod. |
Charging for iPlayer
|
Charging for iPlayer
|
Charging for iPlayer
On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 21:15:12 +0100, Vir Campestris
wrote: On 07/07/2015 12:53, Peter Duncanson wrote: True. http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dic...lish/household household the people living together in one house collectively Interesting definition. In that it excludes any families living in flats... Yes. It is a brief and limited definition. The OED has a longer one: The inhabitants of a house considered collectively; a group of people (esp. a family) living together as a unit; a domestic establishment (including any servants, attendants, etc.). The second clause "...living together as a unit" would cover the situation of more than one household in a house - each household in its own separate flat. -- Peter Duncanson (in uk.tech.digital-tv) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com