Laywoman's view of analogue switch off

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
enews.net...

"David Taylor" wrote in message
...
"-GB-Carpy" wrote on Sat, 17 Sep
2005 08:01:33 GMT:

The BBC will also be forbidden from consigning all its arts
programming to
BBC4 or its documentaries to BBC2. Instead, every channel will
have to
fulfil the corporation's public service remit.

What's the point of having 4 identical BBC channels?

What's the point in there being more than one Sky Movie channel (for
example), after all, a film is a film!....

Doesn't explain why each film is shown twice a day and usually for two days
a week and then the same for every week ad infinitum...

Haven't Sky heard of Sky+? Or VCRs for that matter?

--
Max Demian

"Brian" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:20:09 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote:

But then... the BBC are planning to put their broacasts on the internet,
arent't they? What are we to assume about the legality of watching those
with or without a licence, or even *owning a computer*? The current
licence is apparently required if you have equipment installed for the
use
of receiving broadcasts, which would by that definition include any
computer connected to the internet.

By "that definition" according to certain dictionary definitions of
'receive' and 'broadcast', yes. In practical terms according to the
intention of the TV license, no.

Otherwise I'd need a license for "broadcasting" via paper invitations
about a party, and those "receiving" them would need a license too.

It's about the ability to receive & utilise radio frequency transmissions.
If they want to later on talk about viewing material made by a corporation
(ie. downloading a BBC video or buying a BBC CD with video files on it)
then that's another matter entirely and is unrelated to computer
licensing.

Except that you still need a TV licence if all your equipment is for cable
reception.

--
Max Demian

In article s.net,
":::Jerry::::" writes

"Scott" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:18:25 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Scott" wrote in message
news
[ re IPTV ]

Will computer retailers now have to notify TV Licensing?


Why would they? Broadband ISP's, now that is a different matter...

The duty is on the seller of the reception equipment. AIUI it is
the
TV shop not the aerial installer that has to notify at present.


The point is, a computer can be (and mainly is) used for many things
other than watching TV over IPTV, if were the computer does not have
a IP connection (or certain content is blocked) to the outside world
then it's impossible to be used for such a service.

The fact is, a TV set is sold ready and able to receive broadcast
services (why else would someone buy a TV), thus the law states that
TVL have to be informed of each and every *receiver* sold - no such
requirement exists for the sale of *monitors* - although if connected
to a STB or PVR etc. they could be used to watch broadcast
services...

The STB is notified, and is subject to licence if used to receive
television programmes.

--
Ian G8ILZ

kim wrote:
The license fee is for the right to use receiving equipment, it has
nothing to do with the right to watch programmes.

Correct.

The BBC was originally a branch of the Marconi Radio Company and the
government inherited all its patent rights when it was incorporated
in 1922.

Almost completely incorrect.

Regardless of where a programme originates you pay a license fee for
the equipment to receive it.

Some of us prefer 'licence', but, yes, that's true.

Added to that many if not all of the technicians at Sky and ITV were
trained by the BBC at the license payer's expense.

Quite possibly - though I don't know any statistics, and I doubt
whether they're knowable.

André Coutanche

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
enews.net...
"David Taylor" wrote in message
...
snip
What's the point of having 4 identical BBC channels?

What's the point in there being more than one Sky Movie channel
(for
example), after all, a film is a film!....

Doesn't explain why each film is shown twice a day and usually for
two days
a week and then the same for every week ad infinitum...

Haven't Sky heard of Sky+? Or VCRs for that matter?


Or indeed waiting six months and buying your very own copy, assuming
that it's a 'new' release - but then all the above mean putting some
effort into doing more than sitting on your backside and pressing the
remote buttons - even if it is only the need to put a fresh tape or
DVD in the machine, if you get my drift......

"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
In article
s.net,
":::Jerry::::" writes
snip

The fact is, a TV set is sold ready and able to receive broadcast
services (why else would someone buy a TV), thus the law states
that
TVL have to be informed of each and every *receiver* sold - no
such
requirement exists for the sale of *monitors* - although if
connected
to a STB or PVR etc. they could be used to watch broadcast
services...

The STB is notified, and is subject to licence if used to receive
television programmes.


That was my point, the equipment has to be able to *receive*, without
the need for add on cards or 'boxes', a computer (without a TV
receiver card) or 'production' monitor is no more able to receive a
television service as a washing machine or toaster can.

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message news:432bd463$0$8012

Probably not, seeing that they obviously know the difference between
the legal need to have a licence to own (use) a TV and that of
needing a subscription to view certain channels....

The law doesn't come into it, this is personal, it's about their job
security

"André Coutanche" wrote in message
...
kim wrote:
snip

Added to that many if not all of the technicians at Sky and ITV
were
trained by the BBC at the license payer's expense.

Quite possibly - though I don't know any statistics, and I doubt
whether they're knowable.


Oh, I think it's possible to know how many people were trained by BBC
training in a given period, it's quite possible that names could even
be put to those figures, it's not difficult to then work out the
numbers employed in the technical side of the television industry and
who they work for - at one time, AIUI, the BBC were the only
broadcast industry training organisation, and this didn't change
until relatively recently.

"André Coutanche" wrote in message
...
kim wrote:
The license fee is for the right to use receiving equipment, it has
nothing to do with the right to watch programmes.

Correct.

The BBC was originally a branch of the Marconi Radio Company and the
government inherited all its patent rights when it was incorporated
in 1922.

Almost completely incorrect.

Okay, I was simplifying matters for the purpose of this NG but if you insist
on having the full monty:-

"Another important area in the advances made in wireless telephony lay in
public broadcasting. On 15th June 1920, Britain's first advertised public
broadcast programme took place. A song recital by Dame Nellie Melba was
broadcast using a Marconi 15 kW telephone transmitter at the Marconi works
in Chelmsford, and was heard in many countries.

In 1921, the Company was permitted to broadcast the first regular public
entertainment programme from a low-power transmitter at Writtle, near
Chelmsford, and later from the first London station at Marconi House.

Unrestricted competition was checked however, when, in 1922, the question of
broadcasting was referred to the Broadcasting Sub-Committee of the Imperial
Conference. In 1922, all the competing interests were merged the British
Broadcasting Company, later to become the British Broadcasting Corporation
(BBC). "

From the History section of Marcon's official website:-

http://www.marconi.com/Home/about_us...coni%20History

(kim)

In article ws.net,
LID says...

Yes, I agree, but as long as they are funded from (an indirect tax)
that situation is reversible - it was only some idiot [1] within the
Corporation and his 'internal market' and the unneeded ratings war
with ITV / Ch4 that caused the problem.

[1] trouble is, he know seems to have access of Blair, talk about a
double whammy.... :~(

The BBc was so good a few years back, it was worth paying for, most time
you switch on to a BBc channel, there would be something iteresting to
watch and that was with only 2 channels, now it is boring watered down
rubbish.

You mean they CHOOSE not to watch. If subscription was on a par with
the current licence fee it would be a neutral change (cost wise), and


It is their choice, just like it is my choice not to pay Sky for Sky
movies or Sky sports. I have just downgraded my Sky by 2 mixes. My
choice.

If people do not want to watch the BBC, they should not have to pay for
it.


what would that subscription cover - how would the BBC's radio (and
other non television services be funded?



BBc radio can have adverts and any other BBC non-television services.