1 in 6 people don't watch BBC TV

At 14:08:30 on 13/07/2006, :::Jerry:::: delighted uk.tech.digital-tv by
announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...
At 13:49:07 on 13/07/2006, :::Jerry:::: delighted
uk.tech.digital-tv by
announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...

snip

Please cite the section of the (TVL) law that agrees with your
assertions.

Why not check your licence itself? From the TVL website: "If you
use a
TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes (for
example,
a VCR, set-top box, DVD recorder or PC with a broadcast card) - you
need a TV Licence."

No, I want you to cite the law, not what is printed on the baclk of
the TVL.

There is no law that allows you to watch recordings of broadcast
material since laws do not allow you to do things. I want *you* to
cite the law that prevents you from watching a recording of a broadcast
TV programme without a TV licence.

Note: "to receive or record TV programmes". NOT "to watch"
programmes.
It's no accident that they didn't write "to watch" - because it's
not
true.

That allows people to use an un-licensed TV to watch pre recorded
COMMERCIAL recordings, not to allow you to watch off air broadcast
recordings.

Wrong.

Pyriform wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
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...

Intrigued by your antipathy towards this show


It was just one that screamed out at me that it would be lowest common
denominator toss in the schedule on the day I wrote the post.


I went to the trouble of
watching it. I thought it was fairly entertaining, with a strong human
interest angle, and mildly educative. I have no objection to my
licence money being used to make it. I wouldn't want the schedules to
be packed with copycat versions, but 30 minutes out of the week seems
fine to me.


I hope you like Only Fools that Look Like Horses then, because that seems to
be taking up about 86.34% of BBC1's evening schedule at the moment.


--
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

charles wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
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.

perhaps because the services that local authorities provide take no
account of the income of the user. Indeed, Mr Fat Cat might not even
use some of these services, so, by your logic, should claim a
discount.


As you've not contradicted my assumption that the Poll Tax was a flat-rate
charge on breathing British air and didn't take into account the person's
earnings whatsoever (I didn't take a great deal of interest in politics at
the time), anybody sticking up for such a disgraceful law needs to be strung
up by their ********. Come the day of the revolution, comrade, n all that.

That is all.


--
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

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
It was just one that screamed out at me that [DIY SOS] would be lowest
common denominator toss in the schedule on the day I wrote the post.

So you hadn't actually seen it then...

This reminds me of all the people who complained vehemently about "Jerry
Springer - The Opera", also without the benefit of having seen it.

You do seem to be rather undermining your own case.

I hope you like Only Fools that Look Like Horses then, because that
seems to be taking up about 86.34% of BBC1's evening schedule at the
moment.

I think I'll pass on that, other than to point out that it's on tonight for
a total of 85 minutes, in two chunks. If we assume the 'evening' runs from 6
PM to midnight, that makes 23.6% of the evening schedule, showing once again
that you are prone to hyperbole.

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
As you've not contradicted my assumption that the Poll Tax was a flat-rate
charge on breathing British air and didn't take into account the person's
earnings whatsoever (I didn't take a great deal of interest in politics at
the time), anybody sticking up for such a disgraceful law needs to be strung
up by their ********.

We can take it from your statements on this that you'd be in favour of
a local income tax. I presume you're campaigning on that front as
well. The Council Tax, much like the Poll Tax it replaced, also takes
no account of income - the poll tax was at least fairer on the basis
that it took account of the number of people living in the property and
thus had some link to use. The difference is that it's collectable.

If you're looking for inequity you'll find it everywhere.

I think there could be an even greater need for the licence fee in 10
years time. By then most TV will have moved to an on-demand model
whether via IP or big cheap PVRs. That will probably mean the end of
a lot of secondary/repeat channels and linear advertising will likely
have become ineffective. That's all likely to lead to less risk taking.

At 14:43:35 on 13/07/2006, DAB sounds worse than FM delighted
uk.tech.digital-tv by announcing:

charles wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
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.

perhaps because the services that local authorities provide take no
account of the income of the user. Indeed, Mr Fat Cat might not even
use some of these services, so, by your logic, should claim a
discount.


As you've not contradicted my assumption that the Poll Tax was a
flat-rate charge on breathing British air

I'll contradict that. It made not a jot of difference whether you had
your own personal air supply or not.

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:05:26 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Alex" wrote in message
...
At 13:27:11 on 13/07/2006, Pyriform delighted uk.tech.digital-tv by
announcing:

Alex wrote:
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 did receive them "at the same time or virtually the same time
as
they are broadcast".

The person doing the recording did, yes. And the act of recording
them
requires a licence.

That you chose not to view them until some time
later is utterly irrelevant!

And the act of viewing them from the recording does not require a
licence.

Please cite the section of the TVL Act that states that.


The part of it that does not say you *do* need one.

what the act says:
---------------------------------------------
(1) A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
this Part.

---

(3) References in this Part to using a television receiver are
references to using it for receiving television programmes.
--------------------------------------------

It is only for the *receiving* you need the licence, not for the
*watching*.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
90% of all statistics are made up
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

"Alex" wrote in message
...
At 14:06:11 on 13/07/2006, Pyriform delighted uk.legal by
announcing:

Alex wrote:
At 13:27:11 on 13/07/2006, Pyriform delighted
uk.tech.digital-tv by
announcing:

Alex wrote:
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 did receive them "at the same time or virtually the same
time
as they are broadcast".

The person doing the recording did, yes. And the act of
recording
them requires a licence.

Well make up your mind! You claimed the definition of time
shifting
was what would be tested in court

The situation whereby you watch the recording within a short time
of it
being made is what would need to be tested.

That just goes to show that you haven't read the law partaking to
time-shifting television programmes (so have you actually read the
TVL Act I ask myself...), there is no mention of a time period - it
just says 'responsible', for the simple reason that in one case it
would be reasonable to keep the recording for six months before it
get watched and in another two days could be excessive.


Perhaps I missed whatever tedious point you were trying to make,
which presumably involves one licence payer recording programmes
for
all his non-licence paying scum acquaintances to watch at their
leisure, violating only copyright law in the process. I don't see
how
the precise definition of time shifting plays any part in that
argument.

Because I was responding to the idea of a distribution system which
allows those acquaintances to watch the programme within a short
while
of it having been recorded. Do try to keep up.

See above, time between recording and play-out is irrelivant.

"Pyriform" wrote in message
...
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
snip

I hope you like Only Fools that Look Like Horses then, because
that
seems to be taking up about 86.34% of BBC1's evening schedule at
the
moment.

I think I'll pass on that, other than to point out that it's on
tonight for
a total of 85 minutes, in two chunks. If we assume the 'evening'
runs from 6
PM to midnight, that makes 23.6% of the evening schedule, showing
once again
that you are prone to hyperbole.


Also, the BBC has to schedule for all (unlike many subscription
channels), there might well be (what one person thinks is) crap on
one channel but there is rarely crap on all the others, for example
when 'Only Fools that Look Like Horses' is on BBC1 there is Horizon
on BBC2 - if we have access to BBC3 and 4 the alternate viewing is
even greater (not forgetting that both News24 and BBC Parliament
channels also have programme content at certain times of the day).

wrote in message
oups.com...

snip

The Council Tax, much like the Poll Tax it replaced, also takes
no account of income - the poll tax was at least fairer on the
basis
that it took account of the number of people living in the property
and
thus had some link to use. The difference is that it's
collectable.

The Council Tax does take into account income, although AIUI it's a
claimed benefit, it also takes into account single and elderly
occupancy (automatically).


If you're looking for inequity you'll find it everywhere.

I think there could be an even greater need for the licence fee in
10
years time. By then most TV will have moved to an on-demand model
whether via IP or big cheap PVRs. That will probably mean the
end of
a lot of secondary/repeat channels and linear advertising will
likely
have become ineffective. That's all likely to lead to less risk
taking.


By them product placement will be common, and there could well be
in-programme (scrolling) adverts.