| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Charging for iPlayer
This proposal raises some interesting points. This is my
take on the issue. If one pays for one's licence, should one be asked to pay? If not, how would the system know? Answer, a bureaucratic expense. If one pays but is abroad should one pay? In my opinion, if it is handled, for example like iTunes, a sort of 99p per programme approach, the answer is yes. This would enable the BBC to receive income from non-UK users. No more VPN schemes. Over 75s would be treated just like licence fee payers. Other ideas? Alan -- Mageia 4 for x86_64, Kernel:3.19.8-desktop-3.mga5 KDE version 4.14.5 on an AMD Phenom II X4 Black edition. |
Charging for iPlayer
"Pinnerite" wrote in message
... This proposal raises some interesting points. This is my take on the issue. If one pays for one's licence, should one be asked to pay? If not, how would the system know? Answer, a bureaucratic expense. If one pays but is abroad should one pay? In my opinion, if it is handled, for example like iTunes, a sort of 99p per programme approach, the answer is yes. This would enable the BBC to receive income from non-UK users. No more VPN schemes. Over 75s would be treated just like licence fee payers. Other ideas? Is it still the case that one can legally watch TV programmes on catch-up sites such as iPlayer and ITV Player where the programme is only available after it has been broadcast on terrestrial/satellite, but one needs a licence to watch a programme on the same site as it is being transmitted? How did that disparity arise and why hasn't it ever been changed? I'd have assumed that a licence was *always* required to watch a programme in the UK, irrespective of whether it was watched as it was being broadcast or a few days later on a catch-up site. |
Charging for iPlayer
What about the blind user who gets a reduced price, but, and here is where
some money might be made, if this blind person lives with sighted people, at the moment all can view for the reduced cost. Maybe a personal licence fee is needed here, so that everyone contributes a little, the more adults in the house the more they pay? Hides under sideboard. Brian -- From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active "Pinnerite" wrote in message ... This proposal raises some interesting points. This is my take on the issue. If one pays for one's licence, should one be asked to pay? If not, how would the system know? Answer, a bureaucratic expense. If one pays but is abroad should one pay? In my opinion, if it is handled, for example like iTunes, a sort of 99p per programme approach, the answer is yes. This would enable the BBC to receive income from non-UK users. No more VPN schemes. Over 75s would be treated just like licence fee payers. Other ideas? Alan -- Mageia 4 for x86_64, Kernel:3.19.8-desktop-3.mga5 KDE version 4.14.5 on an AMD Phenom II X4 Black edition. |
Charging for iPlayer
|
Charging for iPlayer
In article , NY
wrote: Is it still the case that one can legally watch TV programmes on catch-up sites such as iPlayer and ITV Player where the programme is only available after it has been broadcast on terrestrial/satellite, but one needs a licence to watch a programme on the same site as it is being transmitted? Yes. Although the site may have been able to stream it 'live'. What apparently matters is that you *don't* watch it live. How did that disparity arise and why hasn't it ever been changed? I'd have assumed that a licence was *always* required to watch a programme in the UK, irrespective of whether it was watched as it was being broadcast or a few days later on a catch-up site. I guess the disparity arises for the usual reason. The way lawyers and politicians write laws that have all kinds of loopholes. Mix of carelessness, human error, and an eye to a future moneymaker. :-) In practice I guess the assumption in the past was that to watch something 'later' you had to record it 'live' in the first place. So needed a license in practice anyway. Now you don't. So far as I know, legally, the BBC could say "We've decided you can only watch/listen to iplayer on demand if you have a license because we have arranged it that way". Purely on the basis that it suits the BBC. No-one has a 'right' to view the iplayer. The snag is just *how* they would/will so arrange it, and how they'd then actually enforce dealing with anyone who watched/listened without a license and stop them. Just asking people politely not to may not be very effective. Personally I think those who watch iplayer *should* get a license simply as a matter of fairness, and with an eye to ensuring that it continues to be available, and worth watching. But of course many people will dodge payments if they can. 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
|
Charging for iPlayer
Perhaps it needs to be done like an oyster card system, You can pay up front
for a year or pay as you go along, but of course the system needs to be designed that can cope with this on line as well. It seems that there is a problem here due to insufficient foresight on the ways to watch tv. Being the age i am I don't much care as long as radio is free. Maybe that should be charged for as well. Can you imagine if every streamed outlet was metered and payment is run up on a pay as you go system? I'd hope that mightfocus some people to actually make programs worth watching. Of course we now have bbc stuff on commercial channels like really and drama, so perhaps it is time to go down the ch 4 route, which should be considered, but the impartiality of programs preserved bty statute, in other words the advertisers should have no input to the programs, but only advertise if they want to. The problem than is, do you have a body who says what you can and cannot make? The whole thing is a bit of a dogs dinner and we have inherited a system from a more innocent age. Brian -- From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active "NY" wrote in message o.uk... "Pinnerite" wrote in message ... This proposal raises some interesting points. This is my take on the issue. If one pays for one's licence, should one be asked to pay? If not, how would the system know? Answer, a bureaucratic expense. If one pays but is abroad should one pay? In my opinion, if it is handled, for example like iTunes, a sort of 99p per programme approach, the answer is yes. This would enable the BBC to receive income from non-UK users. No more VPN schemes. Over 75s would be treated just like licence fee payers. Other ideas? Is it still the case that one can legally watch TV programmes on catch-up sites such as iPlayer and ITV Player where the programme is only available after it has been broadcast on terrestrial/satellite, but one needs a licence to watch a programme on the same site as it is being transmitted? How did that disparity arise and why hasn't it ever been changed? I'd have assumed that a licence was *always* required to watch a programme in the UK, irrespective of whether it was watched as it was being broadcast or a few days later on a catch-up site. |
Charging for iPlayer
|
Charging for iPlayer
On 06/07/15 11:43, NY wrote:
Is it still the case that one can legally watch TV programmes on catch-up sites such as iPlayer and ITV Player where the programme is only available after it has been broadcast on terrestrial/satellite, but one needs a licence to watch a programme on the same site as it is being transmitted? How did that disparity arise and why hasn't it ever been changed? I'd have assumed that a licence was *always* required to watch a programme in the UK, irrespective of whether it was watched as it was being broadcast or a few days later on a catch-up site. It's because the "Licence" is required under the 1949 Wireless Telegraphy Act to install a television receiving station. The Act has been stretched to cover situations where no 'wireless' is involved, such as real-time iPlayer, but it really can't apply to downloading a file from a BBC website. Maybe eventually it will be decided to divorce the BBC subscription from a law intended to stop pirate transmissions, but it would be very difficult then to justify criminal sanctions against those who do not comply. -- Dave |
Charging for iPlayer
In article , Yellow
wrote: In article , says... I live on my own so my Licence fee, per head, is more than for my neighbours rather more crowded household but if you are all siting down to watch the same show at the same time, does it matter? The practical reality here would be akin to other areas. The more complicated you make the assessment of 'how much to pay', the more expensive you make the assessment and collection process. And the more chances there will be for some to 'game' the system. 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. 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. Since you don't even need a TV these days, the old idea of needing to establish there is one has become an irrelevance. Personally, I'm happy with the idea that the old and crumbling should also pay. However I also think they should get a decent pension to live on. So making them pay seems OK to me *provided* the Government increase the pension they get to balance it out. But no, I'm not holding my breath and expecting that... The real problem, of course, is that the current government aren't interested in any of that. They are more interested in cutting and undermining the BBC because it isn't tied to their own wishes and provides an alternative to the wealth, power, influence, and control of its rich mates. Hence they just need some pretty words to gloss what they will now do. It doesn't matter to them if people can see though them because the newspapers their mates run will support them. They apply The Golden Rule as per the Wizard of Iz. The Golden Rule: The man with the gold makes the rules. 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
In article , dave
wrote: Maybe eventually it will be decided to divorce the BBC subscription from a law intended to stop pirate transmissions, but it would be very difficult then to justify criminal sanctions against those who do not comply. By chance I watched BBC Parliament whilst I had a cup of tea a while ago, and they were carring live a session where the relevant minister was dealing with the BBC. If I followed correctly: One comment he made was to the effect that he agreed that the arrangements needing changing so that 'listen again' *also* needed a license. I didn't note his wording in detail, so there may be some 'gotcha' involved for the BBC, or I misunderstood. But it did seem as if the government will deal with this specific issue. The comment was just after 4pm I think. So use of 'listen again' may find what he said and we can check the wording. :-) Just shows that it makes sense to have a tea break! 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 Mon, 6 Jul 2015 11:43:46 +0100, "NY" wrote:
Is it still the case that one can legally watch TV programmes on catch-up sites such as iPlayer and ITV Player where the programme is only available after it has been broadcast on terrestrial/satellite, but one needs a licence to watch a programme on the same site as it is being transmitted? I believe so, and it's also still the case that if you watch television by some method that does require a licence, it doesn't matter whether the programmes you're watching are provided by the BBC or by somebody else. It doesn't matter if you never watch a BBC programme, you have to pay the BBC, otherwise you're a criminal. How did that disparity arise and why hasn't it ever been changed? I'd have assumed that a licence was *always* required to watch a programme in the UK, irrespective of whether it was watched as it was being broadcast or a few days later on a catch-up site. I'd have assumed that if you're required to pay for something, then you should pay for what you get, and you should pay the people you get it from, or at least the money should eventually find its way to them. I can't offhand think of any counterexamples. The whole system is an utter mess, so it's little wonder that many people have no respect for it. It's as if the people in charge haven't been paying attention and still think it's the 1940s. If any changes are made, they'll have to be pretty drastic ones or it will be difficult to justify the result in terms of anything resembling logic. Rod. |
Charging for iPlayer
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. |
Charging for iPlayer
Pinnerite wrote:
if it is handled, for example like iTunes, a sort of 99p per programme approach Sod that! I just want a fixed annual fee that allows me to watch/listen to BBC programmes, either on air, or over the net, not pay per view. |
Charging for iPlayer
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 11:30:26 +0100, Pinnerite
wrote: This proposal raises some interesting points. This is my take on the issue. If one pays for one's licence, should one be asked to pay? If not, how would the system know? Answer, a bureaucratic expense. If one pays but is abroad should one pay? In my opinion, if it is handled, for example like iTunes, a sort of 99p per programme approach, the answer is yes. This would enable the BBC to receive income from non-UK users. No more VPN schemes. Over 75s would be treated just like licence fee payers. Other ideas? It is not clear from any of the replies whether holders of UK Television licences would be required to pay. It seems unreasonable to have to pay for the same thing twice and there seems to be no appetite to change BBC television to a subscription model. If you just gave all licence holders a code - or allowed them to use the licence number - how would you prevent fraud? |
Charging for iPlayer
On 06/07/2015 18:43, Andy Burns wrote:
Pinnerite wrote: if it is handled, for example like iTunes, a sort of 99p per programme approach Sod that! I just want a fixed annual fee that allows me to watch/listen to BBC programmes, either on air, or over the net, not pay per view. Something like an annual licence fee perhaps? Anyway, that's all buggered now, the moaners and whingers have won. It was announced this evening that the BBC are now looking into ways to charge for the catch up services. That will also presumably apply to Channel 4 - ITV already have theirs covered by the advertising - so I expect we'll ALL end up paying more. After all, someone has to pay the costs of change and administration. -- David Kennedy http://www.anindianinexile.com |
Charging for iPlayer
|
Charging for iPlayer
On 06/07/2015 22:43, Yellow wrote:
In article , says... If you just gave all licence holders a code - or allowed them to use the licence number - how would you prevent fraud? How do Netflix prevent fraud? They limit the number of concurrent logins to whatever the subscription is for. My son has a sub for 6 concurrent users and a few months ago found he couldn't log on. It transpired that a young family member had given the password to someone else, who had given the password to someone else, etc. He simply changed the main password and they were all blocked. I don't suppose Netflix actually mind who exactly are watching, they have taken the money anyway. -- Chris |
Charging for iPlayer
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 22:02:19 +0100, David Kennedy
wrote: It was announced this evening that the BBC are now looking into ways to charge for the catch up services. That will also presumably apply to Channel 4 - ITV already have theirs covered by the advertising - so I expect we'll ALL end up paying more. Paying more or watching less. If they demand more money for what I've already got, I'll have to consider how badly I want it, and whether it's worth paying for. I hope that at least we have that amount of choice, i.e. not pay for programmes we don't want and watch something else instead, which at the moment is not an option. Rod. |
Charging for iPlayer
David Kennedy wrote:
Something like an annual licence fee perhaps? Yes, I just want the current scheme to cover all equipment. |
Charging for iPlayer
On 06/07/2015 23:20, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 22:02:19 +0100, David Kennedy wrote: It was announced this evening that the BBC are now looking into ways to charge for the catch up services. That will also presumably apply to Channel 4 - ITV already have theirs covered by the advertising - so I expect we'll ALL end up paying more. Paying more or watching less. If they demand more money for what I've already got, I'll have to consider how badly I want it, and whether it's worth paying for. I hope that at least we have that amount of choice, i.e. not pay for programmes we don't want and watch something else instead, which at the moment is not an option. Rod. It's all smoke and mirrors - as it was when water meters were introduced, everyone ends up paying more. -- David Kennedy http://www.anindianinexile.com |
Charging for iPlayer
On 07/07/2015 07:50, Andy Burns wrote:
David Kennedy wrote: Something like an annual licence fee perhaps? Yes, I just want the current scheme to cover all equipment. It'll never work! All the whingers and moaners are too busy being clever to think it through. Remember the Building Society shares fiascos? A few people benefited - for a short time - then everyone lost out. Perhaps those not happy with the present arrangements could move to Greece? -- David Kennedy http://www.anindianinexile.com |
Charging for iPlayer
On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 07:50:25 +0100, Andy Burns
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? Rod. |
Charging for iPlayer
On 07/07/2015 09:18, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 07:50:25 +0100, Andy Burns 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? Rod. A clever response but a little naive perhaps? Unless you are suggesting sat nav, mobile phones, gps, monitors and all the other screens are going to be charged for? I really would object to paying to view the led screen on my multi meter or the one on my washing machine. Get a grip. Have you seen what Sky charge - and get away with? Or are you suggesting that those with a Sky subscription watch everything Sky broadcast whereas those with a TV licence only watch part of their output? -- David Kennedy http://www.anindianinexile.com |
Charging for iPlayer
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 -- 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 Mon, 06 Jul 2015 16:54:32 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote: By chance I watched BBC Parliament whilst I had a cup of tea a while ago, and they were carring live a session where the relevant minister was dealing with the BBC. If I followed correctly: One comment he made was to the effect that he agreed that the arrangements needing changing so that 'listen again' *also* needed a license. I didn't note his wording in detail, so there may be some 'gotcha' involved for the BBC, or I misunderstood. But it did seem as if the government will deal with this specific issue. The comment was just after 4pm I think. So use of 'listen again' may find what he said and we can check the wording. :-) We'd better listen again while we still can without a licence, otherwise we may not know if it will be possible to continue to do it without a licence... Rod. |
Charging for iPlayer
In article , Scott
wrote: t is not clear from any of the replies whether holders of UK Television licences would be required to pay. It seems unreasonable to have to pay for the same thing twice and there seems to be no appetite to change BBC television to a subscription model. My current understanding is that the annoucement is to the effect that the requirement to have a TV license will be extended to cover the 'on demand' access to BBC iplayer. i.e. become covered by the license in the same way as 'live' tv is now. This simply closes the loophole. However I've used get_iplayer to fetch the relevant section from BBC Parliament so I can check the minister's wording carefully for any gotchas. If anyone is interested, they can also look at this using 'on demand'. It's about 1 hour into the 'Home Office Questions' for yesterday. 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 Tue, 07 Jul 2015 09:26:15 +0100, David Kennedy
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? Rod. A clever response but a little naive perhaps? Unless you are suggesting sat nav, mobile phones, gps, monitors and all the other screens are going to be charged for? I really would object to paying to view the led screen on my multi meter or the one on my washing machine. I think it was you 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. Rod. |
Charging for iPlayer
In article , Roderick Stewart
wrote: On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 09:26:15 +0100, David Kennedy 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? Rod. A clever response but a little naive perhaps? Unless you are suggesting sat nav, mobile phones, gps, monitors and all the other screens are going to be charged for? I really would object to paying to view the led screen on my multi meter or the one on my washing machine. I think it was you 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. it;'s very similar to the idea that all purchasers of blank tapes/CDs should pay a copyright levy since they are going to be used to pirate copies of existing recordings/ |
Charging for iPlayer
Roderick Stewart 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. 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 ... |
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