> Not even then, they changed the rules - if you watch programmes via 
> something like the BBC's iPlayer which doesn't require a tuner of any 
> description you'll need a licence.

Do you have a reference, only reason I ask is that on the TV licensing 
website it says:

"You do not need a TV Licence to view video clips on the internet, as long 
as what you are viewing is not being shown on TV at the same time as you are 
viewing it."

To me that seems pretty clear that you don't need a license to use iPlayer.

Post a reply to this message

>> I assume then if they charge every household a fee for the privilege to 
>> watch TV, they don't have any advertisements?
>
> No - just not as *many* adverts. ;-)

Actually on BBC channels there are no adverts at all, apart from trailers 
for other BBC programs and services.  These usually come in the form of 1-3 
short trailers *between* each program, never during a program.

> (E.g., Formula 1 is coming back to the BBC, so now you can watch the 
> entire race without an advert break every 20 minutes. There will still be 
> a whole heap of adverts before it starts, and after it ends, just not 
> while the actual race is happening.)

From what I remember when F1 used to be on the BBC, you certainly got a good 
30 minutes of coverage before the race starts, and another good 30 minutes 
at the end.  Not a single advert (for another BBC product) in sight.  If you 
really hate the BBC adverts so much, then you can often just press the red 
button and watch sports that way, there you really see nothing apart from 
the actual event.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:30:06 -0000, "Phil Cook v2"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>And lo On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:51:42 -0000, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom>  
>did spake thusly:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:12:19 -0000, "Phil Cook v2"
>> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed one of the problems was that the VCR signal was very close to the
>>> brand-new Channel 5's frequency causing many complaints.
>>
>> Normally, with the help of a small screwdriver the output frequency of a  
>> VCR can be changed :O
>
>Yeah I could just see a population, who at the time couldn't even work a  
>VCR, scrabbling about with a screwdriver ;-)
>

Well, they just get their 4 year olds to do it. As we all know "My 4 year old
can work the VCR better than I can" ;-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> None of the BBC channels feature adverts, except for themselves. The big 
> benefit those who moan about this 'tax' is that there exists two 
> children's channels (young-uns and not so young-uns) that have no 
> advertising.

The main benefit for me is sports, like tennis, Formula 1, snooker, darts, 
(some) football etc, that you get to see totally uninterupted and totally 
free from annoying adverts that they shove in your face at every opportunity 
on other channels.  If only there was some cricket on the BBC, and all 
sports were shown in HD then I'd probably even pay the license fee :-)

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:38:15 -0000, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did  
spake thusly:

>> Not even then, they changed the rules - if you watch programmes via  
>> something like the BBC's iPlayer which doesn't require a tuner of any  
>> description you'll need a licence.
>
> Do you have a reference, only reason I ask is that on the TV licensing  
> website it says:
>
> "You do not need a TV Licence to view video clips on the internet, as  
> long as what you are viewing is not being shown on TV at the same time  
> as you are viewing it."
>
> To me that seems pretty clear that you don't need a license to use  
> iPlayer.

"The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 (No. 692)

9 (2) In this regulation, any reference to receiving a television  
programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any  
programme included in that service, where that programme is received at  
the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of  
the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that  
service."

The catch is the definition of "virtually". It also means you have to  
watch out when the BBC repeats stuff as it has recently done with somethng  
like Screenwipe (originally BBC4 now repeating on BBC1).

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:46:26 -0000, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did  
spake thusly:

>> None of the BBC channels feature adverts, except for themselves. The  
>> big benefit those who moan about this 'tax' is that there exists two  
>> children's channels (young-uns and not so young-uns) that have no  
>> advertising.
>
> The main benefit for me is sports, like tennis, Formula 1, snooker,  
> darts, (some) football etc, that you get to see totally uninterupted and  
> totally free from annoying adverts that they shove in your face at every  
> opportunity on other channels.  If only there was some cricket on the  
> BBC, and all sports were shown in HD then I'd probably even pay the  
> license fee :-)

Heh well I'm not a sports fan, but I can appreciate your point of view; in  
much the same way I can appreciate it's nice to have children's channels  
without any nag your parents to buy this.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook v2 wrote:

>> I assume then if they charge every household a fee for the privilege 
>> to watch TV, they don't have any advertisements?
> 
> None of the BBC channels feature adverts, except for themselves. The big 
> benefit those who moan about this 'tax' is that there exists two 
> children's channels (young-uns and not so young-uns) that have no 
> advertising.
> 

That is nice. :)

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

> The catch is the definition of "virtually".

I would expect it to be there just to cover any transmission delays up to a 
few seconds, but you never know with these legal types, they'll probably 
argue that 1 hour later is "virtually the same time" :-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Mmm, OK. I didn't think anybody had filmed much in HD yet.
> 
> I think almost every film has been recorded in HD for many years, if not 
> decades.  Judging by the number of HD discs available.

I think it's more like almost every film has been recorded in *film* for 
many years. Rescanning the film into HD isn't more difficult than scanning 
it into SD, once you have the equipment.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Well, they just get their 4 year olds to do it. As we all know "My 4 year old
> can work the VCR better than I can" ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LLTsSnGWMI#t=5m0s

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message