1 in 6 people don't watch BBC TV

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

Two examples that come immediately to mind are the Poll Tax
(infinitely fairer than Council tax but uncollectable),
It's a great idea if you're in favour of riots.

This is very much a side issue but that's a flippant answer. There are
two adults in my household. The property next door is occupied by 5
professional sharers. Similar value of house - why should i pay the
same tax for local services as they do?

The council tax is patently an unfair way to deal with local services
but it's collectable. Much the same as subscription tv and the TV
licence - you could equally argue that the problem with the TV licence
is the same as council tax. Why should my household pay the same as
next door - they might have 4 TVs and be watching 4 different
programmes so shouldn't they pay 4 TV licences?

At 10:13:00 on 13/07/2006, :::Jerry:::: delighted uk.tech.digital-tv by
announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...
At 09:40:18 on 13/07/2006, :::Jerry:::: delighted
uk.tech.digital-tv by
announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...
At 22:56:16 on 12/07/2006, :::Jerry:::: delighted
uk.tech.digital-tv by
snip

No, the TV that is receiving the time-shift recording will
need
to be
licensed,

No it will not.

snip the rest of your total bollox

The only 'bollox' is your understanding of the law.

I see that you copped out of explaining how sharing one TVL in one
street would be legal...

The important part is the court's interpretation of "virtually the same
time." I would probably argue that 5 seconds is a short enough time to
qualify, especially since some satellite signals are at least this far
behind.

And you seem to fail to understand the difference between the legality
from the TV licensing point of view, and the illegality under copyright
legislation.

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Carl Waring wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
So why not change it so that they don't have to be obsessed by
viewing figures, which they currently are, and that's what causes
all the dross to be shown on BBC1/2.

Because that would then give the anti-LF people even more ammunition
to say "why should we pay them so much money when they make
programmes that don't get many viewers".


Well, as they are and will remain to be obsessed by ratings, then
they don't deserve the licence fee, because the programmes they're
making are on the most part ****e.


Like I said, damned if they do and damned if they don't


That's the usual BBC defence,


simply
because some people don't get the concept on which the BBC was built;


Methinks that this bloke would be turning in his grave with the
amount of dross broadcast by the BBC these days:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Reith

So don't try and suggest that the concept on which the BBC was built
was DIY sodding SOS et al.

Erm... ONE show? You pick on ONE show out of everything the BBC does?

I'm fairly certain that the majority of this lot - www.bbc.co.uk/atoz -
are well within the BBC's remit of informing, educating and entertaining; as
is DIY SOS as it happens.

Again, just because YOU don't like the programme does not mean that the BBC
should not make/show it. How about "Big Cat Week" for educational purposes?


--
Carl Waring
DigiGuide: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
DGLite: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=4&r=1495 - FREE!!!

"Alex" wrote in message
...
At 10:13:00 on 13/07/2006, :::Jerry:::: delighted
uk.tech.digital-tv by
announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...
At 09:40:18 on 13/07/2006, :::Jerry:::: delighted
uk.tech.digital-tv by
announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...
At 22:56:16 on 12/07/2006, :::Jerry:::: delighted
uk.tech.digital-tv by
snip

No, the TV that is receiving the time-shift recording
will
need
to be
licensed,

No it will not.

snip the rest of your total bollox

The only 'bollox' is your understanding of the law.

I see that you copped out of explaining how sharing one TVL in
one
street would be legal...

The important part is the court's interpretation of "virtually the
same
time." I would probably argue that 5 seconds is a short enough
time to
qualify, especially since some satellite signals are at least this
far
behind.

So what about a one hour time delay, are you seriously suggesting
that a whole street watch Eastenders one hour later...


And you seem to fail to understand the difference between the
legality
from the TV licensing point of view, and the illegality under
copyright
legislation.


No, you are failing to understand. You still need a TVL to
time-shift, or to watch a time-shifted recording - IIRC the term that
covers this is 'As Live', this is why streamed recordings of complete
programmes such as Question Time are in a licensing grey area.

At 11:08:44 on 13/07/2006, :::Jerry:::: delighted uk.tech.digital-tv by
announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...
At 10:13:00 on 13/07/2006, :::Jerry:::: delighted
uk.tech.digital-tv by
announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...
At 09:40:18 on 13/07/2006, :::Jerry:::: delighted
uk.tech.digital-tv by
announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...
At 22:56:16 on 12/07/2006, :::Jerry:::: delighted
uk.tech.digital-tv by
snip

No, the TV that is receiving the time-shift recording
will
need
to be
licensed,

No it will not.

snip the rest of your total bollox

The only 'bollox' is your understanding of the law.

I see that you copped out of explaining how sharing one TVL in
one
street would be legal...

The important part is the court's interpretation of "virtually the
same
time." I would probably argue that 5 seconds is a short enough
time to
qualify, especially since some satellite signals are at least this
far
behind.

So what about a one hour time delay, are you seriously suggesting
that a whole street watch Eastenders one hour later...

I'm not suggesting anything. You're asking what is permitted by the TV
licence.

And you seem to fail to understand the difference between the
legality
from the TV licensing point of view, and the illegality under
copyright
legislation.


No, you are failing to understand. You still need a TVL to
time-shift, or to watch a time-shifted recording - IIRC the term that
covers this is 'As Live', this is why streamed recordings of complete
programmes such as Question Time are in a licensing grey area.

It depends on your definition of "time-shift", and it is this
definition that would be tested in court. The licence is required if
you receive programmes at the same time or virtually the same time as
they are broadcast. I would argue that an hour later is not even
virtually the same time and therefore a licence is not required.

"Alex" wrote in message
...
At 11:08:44 on 13/07/2006, :::Jerry:::: delighted
uk.tech.digital-tv by
announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...
At 10:13:00 on 13/07/2006, :::Jerry:::: delighted
uk.tech.digital-tv by
announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...
At 09:40:18 on 13/07/2006, :::Jerry:::: delighted
uk.tech.digital-tv by
announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...
At 22:56:16 on 12/07/2006, :::Jerry:::: delighted
uk.tech.digital-tv by
snip

No, the TV that is receiving the time-shift recording
will
need
to be
licensed,

No it will not.

snip the rest of your total bollox

The only 'bollox' is your understanding of the law.

I see that you copped out of explaining how sharing one TVL
in
one
street would be legal...

The important part is the court's interpretation of "virtually
the
same
time." I would probably argue that 5 seconds is a short enough
time to
qualify, especially since some satellite signals are at least
this
far
behind.

So what about a one hour time delay, are you seriously suggesting
that a whole street watch Eastenders one hour later...

I'm not suggesting anything. You're asking what is permitted by
the TV
licence.

No, you are suggesting that people can watch 'as live' (UK)
television without having a TVL, I'm asking you to cite the law that
states that, something that you have failed to do thus far.


And you seem to fail to understand the difference between the
legality
from the TV licensing point of view, and the illegality under
copyright
legislation.


No, you are failing to understand. You still need a TVL to
time-shift, or to watch a time-shifted recording - IIRC the term
that
covers this is 'As Live', this is why streamed recordings of
complete
programmes such as Question Time are in a licensing grey area.

It depends on your definition of "time-shift", and it is this
definition that would be tested in court. The licence is required
if
you receive programmes at the same time or virtually the same time
as
they are broadcast. I would argue that an hour later is not even
virtually the same time and therefore a licence is not required.

You seem to be changing your mind now...

My argument is that you need a TVL to view time-shifted broadcasts,
when the time-shift recording was made is thus irrelevant - it's the
'as live' aspect that is the issue here.

At 12:22:01 on 13/07/2006, :::Jerry:::: delighted uk.tech.digital-tv by
announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...
At 11:08:44 on 13/07/2006, :::Jerry:::: delighted
uk.tech.digital-tv by
announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...
At 10:13:00 on 13/07/2006, :::Jerry:::: delighted
uk.tech.digital-tv by
announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...
At 09:40:18 on 13/07/2006, :::Jerry:::: delighted
uk.tech.digital-tv by
announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...
At 22:56:16 on 12/07/2006, :::Jerry:::: delighted
uk.tech.digital-tv by
snip

No, the TV that is receiving the time-shift recording
will
need
to be
licensed,

No it will not.

snip the rest of your total bollox

The only 'bollox' is your understanding of the law.

I see that you copped out of explaining how sharing one TVL
in
one
street would be legal...

The important part is the court's interpretation of "virtually
the
same
time." I would probably argue that 5 seconds is a short enough
time to
qualify, especially since some satellite signals are at least
this
far
behind.

So what about a one hour time delay, are you seriously suggesting
that a whole street watch Eastenders one hour later...

I'm not suggesting anything. You're asking what is permitted by
the TV
licence.

No, you are suggesting that people can watch 'as live' (UK)
television without having a TVL,

I suggested nothing of the sort. I suggested that people can watch
recorded material, irrespective of the source, without having a licence
as long as it is not being replayed at the same time or virtually the
same time as it is being broadcast.

Note that you may be in breach of broadcasting regulations (as well as
copyright) if you retransmit the programme, but there's nothing (other
than copyright) to stop you making multiple copies of the video and
distributing them to all your neighbours for them to watch.

I'm asking you to cite the law that
states that, something that you have failed to do thus far.

And you seem to fail to understand the difference between the
legality
from the TV licensing point of view, and the illegality under
copyright
legislation.


No, you are failing to understand. You still need a TVL to
time-shift, or to watch a time-shifted recording - IIRC the term
that
covers this is 'As Live', this is why streamed recordings of
complete
programmes such as Question Time are in a licensing grey area.

It depends on your definition of "time-shift", and it is this
definition that would be tested in court. The licence is required
if
you receive programmes at the same time or virtually the same time
as
they are broadcast. I would argue that an hour later is not even
virtually the same time and therefore a licence is not required.

You seem to be changing your mind now...

My argument is that you need a TVL to view time-shifted broadcasts,
when the time-shift recording was made is thus irrelevant

It is completely relevant.

- it's the
'as live' aspect that is the issue here.

No, it isn't. It's *entirely* down to the time.

Carl Waring wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Carl Waring wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
So why not change it so that they don't have to be obsessed by
viewing figures, which they currently are, and that's what causes
all the dross to be shown on BBC1/2.

Because that would then give the anti-LF people even more ammunition
to say "why should we pay them so much money when they make
programmes that don't get many viewers".


Well, as they are and will remain to be obsessed by ratings, then
they don't deserve the licence fee, because the programmes they're
making are on the most part ****e.


Like I said, damned if they do and damned if they don't


That's the usual BBC defence,


simply
because some people don't get the concept on which the BBC was
built;


Methinks that this bloke would be turning in his grave with the
amount of dross broadcast by the BBC these days:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Reith

So don't try and suggest that the concept on which the BBC was built
was DIY sodding SOS et al.

Erm... ONE show? You pick on ONE show out of everything the BBC does?


It's just an example of lowest common denominator toss that's broadcast.
Don't delude yourself it's the only sodding one...


I'm fairly certain that the majority of this lot - www.bbc.co.uk/atoz -
are well within the BBC's remit of informing,
educating and entertaining; as is DIY SOS as it happens.

Again, just because YOU don't like the programme does not mean that
the BBC should not make/show it. How about "Big Cat Week" for
educational purposes?


As I've already said, Big Cat Week seems to be on every bleeding year. Do
cats change from year to year (apart from getting older) or sumfink?


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

Two examples that come immediately to mind are the Poll Tax
(infinitely fairer than Council tax but uncollectable),
It's a great idea if you're in favour of riots.

This is very much a side issue but that's a flippant answer. There
are two adults in my household. The property next door is occupied
by 5 professional sharers. Similar value of house - why should i pay
the same tax for local services as they do?


Wasn't the Poll Tax charged the same for everybody, independently of what
they earnt? If so, that's about as unfair as you can possibly get, because
Mr One Million Pound Salary Fat Cat is being charged the same as Mr Minimum
Wage.




--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

At 13:03:52 on 13/07/2006, DAB sounds worse than FM delighted
uk.tech.digital-tv by announcing:

Carl Waring wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Carl Waring wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
So why not change it so that they don't have to be obsessed by
viewing figures, which they currently are, and that's what
causes all the dross to be shown on BBC1/2.

Because that would then give the anti-LF people even more
ammunition to say "why should we pay them so much money when
they make programmes that don't get many viewers".


Well, as they are and will remain to be obsessed by ratings, then
they don't deserve the licence fee, because the programmes they're
making are on the most part ****e.


Like I said, damned if they do and damned if they don't


That's the usual BBC defence,


simply
because some people don't get the concept on which the BBC was
built;


Methinks that this bloke would be turning in his grave with the
amount of dross broadcast by the BBC these days:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Reith

So don't try and suggest that the concept on which the BBC was
built was DIY sodding SOS et al.

Erm... ONE show? You pick on ONE show out of everything the BBC
does?


It's just an example of lowest common denominator toss that's
broadcast. Don't delude yourself it's the only sodding one...


I'm fairly certain that the majority of this lot -
www.bbc.co.uk/atoz - are well within the BBC's remit of informing,
educating and entertaining; as is DIY SOS as it happens.

Again, just because YOU don't like the programme does not mean that
the BBC should not make/show it. How about "Big Cat Week" for
educational purposes?


As I've already said, Big Cat Week seems to be on every bleeding
year.

That's the point.

Do cats change from year to year (apart from getting older) or
sumfink?

Yes. It's called a study.