BBC Trust - no idea engineering experience whatsoever

Mike Henry wrote:
In , "Heracles Pollux"
wrote:

"Jerry" wrote in message
dfreenews.net...

As I said, no one is being forced to own a TV...


It would be rather impractical to not own a TV in the 21st century.


Indeed. Luckily, the licence is nothing whatsoever to do with TV
ownership. It's only if you install/use the TV *for the purpose of
receiving programmes* that you'd need to get a licence. Playback of
DVDs, video games etc don't need licences.

Humm.

In that case I wonder why I had to fill in a TV license form when I
bought my Laptop. It doesn't have any form of TV tuner installed, but
they told me that it was the law, that they needed to take details for
TV licensing information, otherwise they would not be able to sell it to me.

I can only assume that this is because my Laptop can be used to play TV
content off the Internet. Actually I'm not sure why it should be so, but
since I already have a license anyway I couldn't be bothered arguing
about it.

Richard E.

In message , Richard Evans
writes
Mike Henry wrote:
In , "Heracles Pollux"
wrote:

"Jerry" wrote in message
adfreenews.net...

As I said, no one is being forced to own a TV...


It would be rather impractical to not own a TV in the 21st century.
Indeed. Luckily, the licence is nothing whatsoever to do with TV
ownership. It's only if you install/use the TV *for the purpose of
receiving programmes* that you'd need to get a licence. Playback of
DVDs, video games etc don't need licences.

Humm.

In that case I wonder why I had to fill in a TV license form when I
bought my Laptop. It doesn't have any form of TV tuner installed, but
they told me that it was the law, that they needed to take details for
TV licensing information, otherwise they would not be able to sell it
to me.

I always pay cash and give a false address for stuff like that - I have
a licence, but that's not the point
--
I treat shops as military objectives to be penetrated and stripped of needed
resources in as little time as possible. She has adventures in them.
-- Anonymous

That's ridiculous. What do you think the licence money pays for?


What parliament decides to spend it on, they could well decide that
it's split five ways between all broadcasters or they might decide
that the BBC has to become a 100 percent commercial broadcaster
allowing HMG spends the television receiver licence fee income on
propping up the NHS or what ever, the fact remains that the fee is
buying a licence to use a television receiver - it only indirectly
funds the BBC, and is why the BBC has to go 'cap in hand' to the
government every year or so.




Well Parliament, with all due respect then, can go and **** themselves as
well as the BBC!

And does Parliament appoint the BBC's Governors, bare any responsibility for
the declining quality of the BBC's output, or take any interest in matters
such as DOGs, DAB, over-compression (as per this thread) or the absurd
salaries? No, because they shelter behind the defence of incompetence by
saying "the BBC is independent". They plan the same escape goat with the
NHS.

And also why has the BBC (the servant) spent so much effort then telling /
trying to persuade Parliament (its masters) that it must have £180 a year?

The Communications Act 2003 was passed, enabling the current licence fee
legislation, by party whip. We did not see every MP investigating the BBC,
merely the usual rigged committees. They were told which way to vote, Labour
pro government, and the other side doing the opposite as by the usual whip.

We live in a flawed democracy. Parliament can be very good at making 10 year
old car passengers wear seat belts but it is totally incompetent at running
and structuring Public Service Broadcasting and creating an open and health
broadcast market.

And does Parliament really want to supervise the BBC or the BBC's TV
Licensing authority that its legislation creates, and indeed the way 90,000
citizens, 66% who are female, who are hearded through the Magistrates'
Courts without legal representation? NO.

I think history judges most Parliamentary and state interventionism as a
disaster be it health, the car industry, Iraq, the railways, education, IT
projects, and soon ID cards.

And I regard the BBC in the same light as British Leyland: An ineffective
and anachronistic structure completely inappropriate to the world we are in
and producing state subsidised products based on what they find convenient
to produce rather than what customers are actually willing to choose. Never
mind the important of education, history, and science output...

I am sure you and may here with disagree!

In message
"Heracles Pollux" wrote:



Err, your argument doesn't stack up, I'm not paying a penny to the
BBC, I'm buying a licence to use a TV - it doesn't matter if I then
watch BBC, ITV or BSkyB's output.

So why is the fee £180 or what ever and not £5?

If it's merely a permit to use a TV set, why does the BBC get and collect
the money?

Because Parliament has decided on our behalf that broadcasting is such
an important medium for informing and educating us and reflecting and
developing our culture that it has chosen to provide us with a public
service at the public expense, via a public corporation established
for that purpose. Funding this through a licence fee rather than
general taxation places some separation between the BBC and government
influence, as well as giving you the opportunity to choose not to pay
by not having television. It's not ideal, but Parliament has so far
failed to come up with a better formula.

Nevertheless, having ready access to a source of news and information
which is not (so far as can be achieved) beholden to political or
commercial pressures is surely pretty important to the maintenance of
an informed electorate in our country and hence of our democracy. Not
everyone reads the newspapers.

If BBC TV didn't exist to provide a strong alternative, Sky News might
quickly metamorphose into Fox News, and ITV news wouldn't exist at all
because of the expense. And the rest of British telly might degenerate
into Italian-style game shows and US imports. Would you really want
that?

--
Richard L.

In article ,
Heracles Pollux wrote:

That's ridiculous. What do you think the licence money pays for?


What parliament decides to spend it on, they could well decide that
it's split five ways between all broadcasters or they might decide
that the BBC has to become a 100 percent commercial broadcaster
allowing HMG spends the television receiver licence fee income on
propping up the NHS or what ever, the fact remains that the fee is
buying a licence to use a television receiver - it only indirectly
funds the BBC, and is why the BBC has to go 'cap in hand' to the
government every year or so.




Well Parliament, with all due respect then, can go and **** themselves as
well as the BBC!

And does Parliament appoint the BBC's Governors,

No, but "the Queen in Council" does.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article
ews.net,
Jerry writes

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
...

snip

It would be rather impractical to not own a TV in the 21st
century.


Why, I would say that it will becoming quite possible to live
without
a television receiver now that the broadband / DSL internet is
able
to supply half decent streaming content, the increase in radio
stations and DVD based entertainment content.



Yes you could do but why should you have to when there is massive
broadcast capacity by satellite?...

Then, like owning a car, you will need to pay any 'tax' that is
levied, perhaps the next point of complaint will be VAT on TV sets -
surely having to pay a tax on buying a TV set is more unjust when we
pay for the content shown on it as well?...

"Richard Evans" wrote in message
...
Mike Henry wrote:
snip

Indeed. Luckily, the licence is nothing whatsoever to do with TV
ownership. It's only if you install/use the TV *for the purpose
of
receiving programmes* that you'd need to get a licence. Playback
of
DVDs, video games etc don't need licences.

Humm.

In that case I wonder why I had to fill in a TV license form when I
bought my Laptop. It doesn't have any form of TV tuner installed,
but
they told me that it was the law, that they needed to take details
for
TV licensing information, otherwise they would not be able to sell
it to me.

Sounds more like sales data harvesting to me, the other scam is 'for
warranty information' - ********, the receipt does that, who actually
owns it is irrelevant.

In article ,
Heracles Pollux wrote:
If it's merely a permit to use a TV set, why does the BBC get and
collect the money?

Why isn't every single penny we are forced to pay in duties and taxes ring
fenced too?

--
*Ah, I see the f**k-up fairy has visited us again

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Heracles Pollux wrote:
Well Parliament, with all due respect then, can go and **** themselves
as well as the BBC!

And does Parliament appoint the BBC's Governors, bare any responsibility
for the declining quality of the BBC's output, or take any interest in
matters such as DOGs, DAB, over-compression (as per this thread) or the
absurd salaries? No, because they shelter behind the defence of
incompetence by saying "the BBC is independent". They plan the same
escape goat with the NHS.

Time you got yourself elected and sorted things out, then.

--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Heracles Pollux wrote:
If it's merely a permit to use a TV set, why does the BBC get and
collect the money?

History. In the very early days of broadcasting, the government saw the
way commercially funded radio had gone in other countries and decided it
wasn't to be in the UK. And subsequent governments of both colours kept it
that way for nearly 30 years.

--
*When you've seen one shopping centre you've seen a mall*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.