licensing are SCUM please read

"BBC ****" wrote in message
news:[email protected] .mailgate.org...

Funny enough SKY almost certainly has a lower evasion rate and lower
cost of collection than the BBC.

Of course Sky does. Their subscription services are encrypted and there's no
way to view them without paying your dues.
A totally invalid comparison.

Loz

"Colin Wilson" wrote in message
t...

You could always watch DVDs and skip broadcast TV altogether...

What would you watch the DVDs on? A PC monitor or a dedicated mobile DVD
player? It's hardly a real choice.

Gareth.

"Gareth" wrote in message
...

"Colin Wilson" wrote in message
t...

You could always watch DVDs and skip broadcast TV altogether...

What would you watch the DVDs on? A PC monitor or a dedicated mobile DVD
player? It's hardly a real choice.

Gareth.

No licence required to own a TV to watch DVDs. Only required to
receive/record UK sourced broadcasts. You have to prove you are not using
the tuner though.
Detuning all the presets should be enough or you could go as far as blocking
the aerial input.

Sim

No licence required to own a TV to watch DVDs. Only required to
receive/record UK sourced broadcasts. You have to prove you are not using
the tuner though.
Detuning all the presets should be enough or you could go as far as blocking
the aerial input.

Sim


Actually, you are NOT required to disprove that you receive TV signals.

The TVL do not have right of access.

The TVL however infer that they have right of access and the right to
"interview" suspects or search peoples homes, however this is not by any
legal power and is entirely voluntary on the part of citizens.

Technically the prosecution must prove you receive access and not the
other way around.

A citizen has no obligation to assist their own prosecution.






--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Of course Sky does. Their subscription services are encrypted and there's no
way to view them without paying your dues.
A totally invalid comparison.

Loz


Why is such comparison invalid?


Surely the goal for both the BBC and BSKYB is 99.9999% compliance with
payment for "services" consumed?

Why is unreasonable to suggest that EVERY person accessing BBC channels
via FREEVIEW or BSKYB accesses those services via an open or
contractor-supplied CAM standard in order to ensure maximum compliance
with The Law?

Surely the BBC / TVL have a morale obligation to prevent breaches of The
Law and to prevent "a minority of criminal evaders" from accessing
licence funded services without paying?





--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"BBC ****" wrote in message
news:[email protected] .mailgate.org...
Why is unreasonable to suggest that EVERY person accessing BBC channels
via FREEVIEW or BSKYB accesses those services via an open or
contractor-supplied CAM standard in order to ensure maximum compliance
with The Law?

Because until digital is the ONLY way to access BBC it is a pointless
excercise as it does nothing to prevent people watching analog broadcasts
without a licence. All you would be doing is introducing an unnessesary
barrier to digital TV adoption, which is not what the government or BBC want
right now.
Once everything is digital however, then that certainly would be a valid
approach, and such a measure probably will be introduced possibly alongside
alternative ways to finance the BBC.

Loz

"loz" wrote in message



"BBC ****" wrote in message
news:[email protected] .mailgate.org...
Why is unreasonable to suggest that EVERY person accessing BBC channels
via FREEVIEW or BSKYB accesses those services via an open or
contractor-supplied CAM standard in order to ensure maximum compliance
with The Law?

Because until digital is the ONLY way to access BBC it is a pointless
excercise as it does nothing to prevent people watching analog broadcasts
without a licence. All you would be doing is introducing an unnessesary
barrier to digital TV adoption, which is not what the government or BBC want
right now.
Once everything is digital however, then that certainly would be a valid
approach, and such a measure probably will be introduced possibly alongside
alternative ways to finance the BBC.

Loz


Erm, no.

We are told that "licence evasion" is a henious criminal offence.

We are told that every single licence fee payers out there - all 2
million people - are purportedly "diverting" fund from the BBC used to
make quality programmes.

The idea that allowing a criminal law to be broken in order to meet a
government political objective is a further mockery of the law.

Surely the upholding of Parliamentary law established in 1949 is far
more important than analogue switch-over?

The argument would be like saying "seatbelts should not be made
compulsory" because cars made before 1974 did not have seatbelts fitted
as standard or that fireworks should not be regulated just because
someone might have an old stock of fireworks.

It is or is it not henious to not want to pay for the BBC?







--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Gareth wrote:
"Colin Wilson" wrote in message
t...

You could always watch DVDs and skip broadcast TV altogether...

What would you watch the DVDs on? A PC monitor or a dedicated mobile
DVD player? It's hardly a real choice.

Gareth.

How about a widescreen plasma TV with cinema / surround sound etc
--

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:03:38 +0000 (UTC), "loz"
wrote:

Once everything is digital however, then that certainly would be a valid
approach, and such a measure probably will be introduced possibly alongside
alternative ways to finance the BBC.

Which is why the BBC intentionally set out to flood the market with
FTA-only set top boxes with Freeview - precisely so that there would
be no choice but to continue funding by the licence fee and there
could be no changeover to a subscription based system.

"BBC ****" wrote in message
news:[email protected] .mailgate.org...

No licence required to own a TV to watch DVDs. Only required to
receive/record UK sourced broadcasts. You have to prove you are not
using
the tuner though.
Detuning all the presets should be enough or you could go as far as
blocking
the aerial input.

Sim


Actually, you are NOT required to disprove that you receive TV signals.

The TVL do not have right of access.

The TVL however infer that they have right of access and the right to
"interview" suspects or search peoples homes, however this is not by any
legal power and is entirely voluntary on the part of citizens.

Technically the prosecution must prove you receive access and not the
other way around.

A citizen has no obligation to assist their own prosecution.



I though we were 'subjects' rather than 'citizens'?

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com