Greg Dyke almost questions analogue switchoff...

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds24531.html
....then changes his mind
http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article313656.ece

Ben wrote:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds24531.html
...then changes his mind
http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article313656.ece

That's the first report I've seen that the TV license will increase for
all to subsidise DTT boxes for the over 75s.

Surely the billions the government are "going" to make from flogging
off the released spectrum should be used for this? Or, since these
billions will go into the same pot as general taxation later, should
not the over 75s subsidy come from general taxation now?

Cheers,
David.

Ben wrote:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds24531.html
...then changes his mind
http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article313656.ece


All the quotes in the Digital Spy article are just lifted from the
Independent article, and he does change his mind back in the Independent
article at the end anyway:

"Suddenly I was back as a switchover supporter, a digital loyalist - but
for a brief second I was nearly lost to the cause."


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

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm

wrote in message
ups.com...
Ben wrote:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds24531.html
...then changes his mind
http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article313656.ece

That's the first report I've seen that the TV license will increase for
all to subsidise DTT boxes for the over 75s.

Surely the billions the government are "going" to make from flogging
off the released spectrum should be used for this? Or, since these
billions will go into the same pot as general taxation later, should
not the over 75s subsidy come from general taxation now?

It's a very short step from subsididing over-75's from general taxation to
financing the entire BBC from general taxation with all the pitfalls that
would entail.

(kim)

On 20 Sep 2005 08:15:07 -0700, "
wrote:

Ben wrote:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds24531.html
...then changes his mind
http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article313656.ece

That's the first report I've seen that the TV license will increase for
all to subsidise DTT boxes for the over 75s.
Why is there so much confusion over LICENCE in this group? Licence
with a 'c' is the noun; license with an 's' is the verb (unless you
are American of course).

Scott

"Scott" wrote in message
...
On 20 Sep 2005 08:15:07 -0700, "
wrote:

Ben wrote:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds24531.html
...then changes his mind
http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article313656.ece

That's the first report I've seen that the TV license will increase for
all to subsidise DTT boxes for the over 75s.

Why is there so much confusion over LICENCE in this group? Licence
with a 'c' is the noun; license with an 's' is the verb (unless you
are American of course).

Either people don't care, or they don't know what a verb is, especially as
it extends to verb derivatives like 'licensing' and 'licensed'.

--
Max Demian

Max Demian wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message
...
On 20 Sep 2005 08:15:07 -0700, "
wrote:

Ben wrote:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds24531.html
...then changes his mind
http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article313656.ece

That's the first report I've seen that the TV license will increase for
all to subsidise DTT boxes for the over 75s.

Why is there so much confusion over LICENCE in this group? Licence
with a 'c' is the noun; license with an 's' is the verb (unless you
are American of course).

Either people don't care, or they don't know what a verb is, especially as
it extends to verb derivatives like 'licensing' and 'licensed'.

Thank you for pointing out my mistake.

Spelling, like sport, is not my strong point. It's not total
disinterest, and I'm certainly not proud of it, but correct spelling
doesn't come easily to me!

Correct spelling does come easily to a Microsoft spell checker (if you
can force it to stay in UK English mode!), but just because the word is
correctly spelt does not mean that it is the correct word. Hopefully
I'll remember this one!

I try to take more care with important documents. As Bill once said,
"chatting" on Usenet is rather like chatting down the pub. There's no
point agonising over things as if the whole world will read them.

Sorry if I've offended one of your pet hates - I know what I think of
people who talk about TV "ariels" so maybe I should be more careful!

Cheers,
David.

kim wrote:
It's a very short step from subsididing over-75's from general taxation to
financing the entire BBC from general taxation with all the pitfalls that
would entail.

How so? This is a one off cost to finance a project which is intended
to make money for the government.

It's the financing of it from the licence fee that sets a dangerous
precedent.

Cheers,
David.

wrote in message
oups.com...
kim wrote:
It's a very short step from subsididing over-75's from general taxation
to
financing the entire BBC from general taxation with all the pitfalls that
would entail.

How so? This is a one off cost to finance a project which is intended
to make money for the government.

The National Health Service was supposed to be a "one off cost" of £200m in
1948. My point being that the government would be entering into an open
ended agreement with possibly unlimited levels of liability in the future.

It's the financing of it from the licence fee that sets a dangerous
precedent.

I'm opposed to that as well.

(kim)

"kim" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
oups.com...
kim wrote:
It's a very short step from subsididing over-75's from general
taxation
to
financing the entire BBC from general taxation with all the
pitfalls that
would entail.

How so? This is a one off cost to finance a project which is
intended
to make money for the government.

The National Health Service was supposed to be a "one off cost" of
£200m in
1948. My point being that the government would be entering into an
open
ended agreement with possibly unlimited levels of liability in the
future.


Setting it up may have been, but it's always been funded from IN
contributions.

It's the financing of it from the licence fee that sets a
dangerous
precedent.

I'm opposed to that as well.


Are you also opposed to taxation?....