BBC Trust - no idea engineering experience whatsoever

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message ...
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:34:23 +0100, "Jerry"

wrote:

Nor are you forced to pay the BBC anything, no one is being
forced
to
own a TV.

Oh dear, not this silly argument again. Of course nobody has to
have a
TV, but it's the 21st century and most people do want one, and
if
you
want a TV, you are obliged to fund the BBC even if you think
it's
rubbish and only want the TV to watch better material broadcast
by
others. The BBC is effectively funded by means of legal
compulsion
through the success of its competitors.


As I said, if you don't want to pay the licence fee then don't
have a
TV, but try paying less at the check out claiming that you don't
watch commercial TV so don't see why you should contribute to
their
TV advertising....

Supposing there was a law compelling you to pay a fee to Ford if
you
bought a Volkswagen? (just to pick two names at random). Would you
then be saying "Nobody is compelled to buy a car"?


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.

A better argument is, do you expect a reduction in your VED because
you only drive your car within 12 mile of your home address and don't
see why you should pay for roads etc. 200 or more miles away? If you
are prepared to object to the VED in the same way as you do to the
TVL then you might get my ear but until then you are just an 'anti
BBC' zealot IMO.

As for your question, if there was a law that states that I had to
pay a fee to Ford even though I had bought a Volkswagen (for
example), yes I would consider if I really needed a car if I really
objected to having to pay Ford money, but if I did need a car I would
pay and just consider it part of the total cost of ownership. Also,
if, by paying Ford, it allowed me access to their services (such as
free engine oil or anti freeze, say) I would make a point of using
them!

"Virgils Ghost" writes:

I agree, they're in a vicious circle, flagging audiences means less
advertising revenue and then even poorer programming, which then drives
further audiences away. Knee-jerk dumbing down is only game in town at ITV,
it can belong before Celebrity Strip Poker, Get Me Out of Here is broadcast.

Which is just making the situation worse. If the response to declining
advertising revenues was to increase the quality of programming then
it might lead to a higher audience share and therefore reverse the
decline in advertising revenue.

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?

"Jerry" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Virgils Ghost" wrote in message
. ..
"Jerry" wrote in message
news:452f5124$0$97250

snip

No one is being forced to own a TV, just like no one is being
forced
to subscribe to BSkyB.

Quite true, but if you choose to own a TV you are still compelled
to buy a
licence whether you watch the BBC or not, you are not compelled by
buy a Sky
subscription.


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.

In article ,
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 that's the way Parliament want to implement it.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:51:16 +0100, "Jerry"
wrote:

Supposing there was a law compelling you to pay a fee to Ford if
you
bought a Volkswagen? (just to pick two names at random). Would you
then be saying "Nobody is compelled to buy a car"?


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.

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

Rod.

"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.

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?...
--
Tony Sayer

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:51:16 +0100, "Jerry"

wrote:

Supposing there was a law compelling you to pay a fee to Ford if
you
bought a Volkswagen? (just to pick two names at random). Would
you
then be saying "Nobody is compelled to buy a car"?


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.

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.

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 07:34:52 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
wrote:


|Wasn't G.N. Patchett by any chance ?

Doesn't ring a bell.

|Either at school or at the tech college.

I was in Huddersfield FWIW.

He was Prof of Elec Eng. at Bradford Poly when I went there on an open
day in 1964. He was quite old, Googling reveals he was writing books
about electronics during the war, he "could" have been a Headmaster.

We gazed in wonderment at a couple of colour tellies displaying colour
bars. They had no source of colour programme material. Must have
gotten boring after a while.

They also had a demonstration of "HIFI" by connecting a Dansette
record player to a larger loudspeaker mounted in a conrete pipe, as
you might expect the bass "Honked" like nobody's business.

I didn't get in, I hadn't put Bradford at the top of my list. G.N.P.
took exception to that.

DG