Five's new channels testing?

In article ,
maethorechannen wrote:

Seeing as people who live in analogue blackspots (ie, people who live in
isolated areas without any analogue coverage) have to pay a licence fee if
they own a TV simply for watching videos,

they don't need a TV Licence for simply watching videos



--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

"maethorechannen" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 04:28:30 -0700, galaxyguy wrote:


Mark Carver wrote: You replied 'The licence fee is for the right to
operate a television
receiver, it's not a right to receive any particular channel'. I guess
you are right but when television is all digital
then homeowners with no Freeview Aerials and boxes or Sky receivers or
other digital satellite boxes will, under your argument still have to
pay a licence fee even though
they have no TV channels!

Seeing as people who live in analogue blackspots (ie, people who live in
isolated areas without any analogue coverage) have to pay a licence fee if
they own a TV simply for watching videos, then I think it's safe to assume
that the same will be true after the switch.

You don't need a licence if your TV is set up just for watching videos!

However if you do not have a licence you may be subject to an abusive
assault by the Licence Authority which apparently can be so intimidating
that people have been known to go out and buy a TV so as to get a licence so
as to stop the hassle!

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:17:23 GMT, (Zero Tolerance)
wrote:

It's not actually a large amount of money compared to what
broadcasting actually costs. The last time I saw the figures (they
were on a website somewhere) the cost for an FTV channel was something
like £75k per year. Given that an outfit like 5 could easily spend
more than that on just one episode of a programme, it simply doesn't
figure. Look at some of the free to air channels on Sky - if even the
lowest of low grade rubbish available there can afford to pay to be on
the EPG, then it's clearly not a particularly burdensome charge.

It is according to the 'Rapture' channel. To quote their press Release "Rapture
TV believes that BSkyB is charging excessively high fees for the supply of an
EPG service on the UK's only DSat platform."
http://www.rapturetv.com/pressrelease/

--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 02:51:32 +0100, maethorechannen wrote:

How many people in the UK are actually affected by Five encrypting on
Satellite? As far as I can tell, the only people affected are those who
can not/will not get Five over freeview and are unwilling to get a Sky
"free to view" installation.

The so called "Free To View" installation actually costs 150 pounds which would
be quite a disincentive to many people.

--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

Zero Tolerance, Thanks again for an informative reply. Your detailed
comments and defence of the current status quo with 5 led me to believe
you may have some loose association with them. It was in that sense
that I wrote "your" a number of times.
Indeed, it's a shame you aren't C5 in wealth terms
Let me assure you and all readers here that I have not emailed 5 with
any of my postings here. I guess they monitor views expressed here
anyway. I have not cut and pasted anything and I hope my expressed
opinions, which I've taken some time to elaborate are not seized on and
'cut and pasted' by anyone else to C5. (Although opinions are not
covered by licensing agreements).
I'm disappointed that nearly every view I've stated has been knocked
back, but then again C5 may agree with some views I've noted.
My only contact with them was on Monday when I telephoned and was put
through to a very pleasant person from their Engineering Department who
quietly listened to me and told me that my expressed views would be
circulated around 5 as part of that day's log.
I was impressed and thanked him.
A little later I tried phoning Channel 4 to discuss these 'in the
clear' satellite issues.
I did not get beyond the Duty Officer who was not helpful at all.
As regards the concept of a C5USA channel coming on air within days, no
I doubt very much whether there will be anything worth watching on it
at all, for me. I am actually a bit suprised the Channel can be
legitimately allowed because I was sure that the EBU or Eurovision or
the EU have applied restrictions to all European TV stations that their
imported quota from outside Europe was fiercly restricted. I can't
recall the percentage but I thought it was as low as 20% at peak
broadcasting times. How you can establish a channel with 100% of US
programming and get away with it beats me; it certainly sounds very
retrograde and will undoubtedly be 'disposable TV'? What a waste of
transponder space and ideas. An earlier correspondent remarked that a
channel showing programmes from Australia {and New Zealand:my addition}
would sound much more appealing. I tend to agree though the quota issue
remains, doesn't it?

Nigel Barker wrote:

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 02:51:32 +0100, maethorechannen wrote:

How many people in the UK are actually affected by Five encrypting on
Satellite? As far as I can tell, the only people affected are those who
can not/will not get Five over freeview and are unwilling to get a Sky
"free to view" installation.

The so called "Free To View" installation actually costs 150 pounds which would
be quite a disincentive to many people.

Agreed. And the encryption of "Free To View" channels results in a gross
anti-competitive advantage for Sky. Competitively priced satellite
receivers will remain unavailable on the High Street as long as they
can't receive many of the popular Terrestrial/Freeview channels.

--
Dave Farrance

Dave Farrance wrote:
Nigel Barker wrote:

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 02:51:32 +0100, maethorechannen
wrote:

How many people in the UK are actually affected by Five encrypting
on Satellite? As far as I can tell, the only people affected are
those who
can not/will not get Five over freeview and are unwilling to get a
Sky "free to view" installation.

The so called "Free To View" installation actually costs 150 pounds
which would be quite a disincentive to many people.

Agreed. And the encryption of "Free To View" channels results in a
gross anti-competitive advantage for Sky. Competitively priced
satellite
receivers will remain unavailable on the High Street as long as they
can't receive many of the popular Terrestrial/Freeview channels.

There would be nothing to stop five dual encrypting if they wished, ie.
Videoguard and CryptoWorks or any other system where CAMs are freely
available.
--
Adrian

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 07:08:50 GMT, Nigel Barker wrote:

It is according to the 'Rapture' channel. To quote their press Release "Rapture
TV believes that BSkyB is charging excessively high fees for the supply of an
EPG service on the UK's only DSat platform."
http://www.rapturetv.com/pressrelease/

Rapture could be like Jomtien, who believes that charging even one
penny would be an excessively high fee.

--

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 04:21:28 +0100, charles wrote:

In article ,
maethorechannen wrote:

Seeing as people who live in analogue blackspots (ie, people who live in
isolated areas without any analogue coverage) have to pay a licence fee if
they own a TV simply for watching videos,

they don't need a TV Licence for simply watching videos



You do if you are using a VCR or a TV with a tuner. The use of any device
capable of receiving a televison transmission requires the licence fee
be paid (http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/informa...dex.jsp#link1). The
only way you could get around it is if you are using a monitor and
DVD/video player - even then, they you are probably going to have to show
that none of your equipment has a tuner.

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 03:15:14 -0700, galaxyguy wrote:

I tend to agree though the quota issue
remains, doesn't it?


IIRC, the quota has a "when reasonable" clause - if your channel is
dedicated to non EU content, then the quota is not "reasonable" and
and therefore no longer applies. That's assuming the quota still exists
(I seem to remember that they were considering scrapping it, as it's not
particularly effective in a multichannel environment).