|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:00:21 -0500, Warp wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> BTW, once upon a time cable TV was supposed to be free of ads because
>> you were directly paying for the shows. Somehow, that plan didn't work
>> out...
>
> So you pay for cable... and have to watch commercials regarldess?
No, that's what the magic skippy button I previously referred to is
for. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> That's nothing. In Finland they are passing a law that every single
> household has to pay for TV. Yes, even people who don't own any kind of
> TV nor computer and are blind and deaf at the same time.
OK, that's pretty special, right there.
So even if you don't have electricity, you need a licence? Even if
you're blind and so cannot physically watch it? Wow. It's like a license
to print money! :-D
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> At least here in the US, the programmes are secondary - the whole
>> point of commercial television is the commercials - that's where the
>> broadcasters make their money.
>>
>> The shows are what draws people to watch.
>>
>> But of course with things like the "magic skippy button" (ie, DVR and
>> the ability to skip commercials), broadcasters are having problems
>> justifying the cost of ad slots since the number of views is lower
>> because technology allows people to skip commercials.
>
> In the UK, everybody who owns a TV has to pay money to the BBC. The BBC
> therefore has no incentive at all to ever show anything.
You could try reading the BBC's Royal Charter
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_govern/charter.pdf
> (Well, except I
> suppose that if they stopped broadcasting, the government wouldn't be
> too amused about it...) In general, the BBC used to produce some pretty
> high-quality stuff. (They also have fewER adverts.) Today, even the BBC
> is being diluted across too many channels.
>
> I just don't watch TV any more. :-P
>
> Let's face it, watching TV adverts is like a bad acid trip.
>
And what would you know about an acid trip, good or bad?
> PS. In theory if you don't own a TV you don't have to pay for a TV
> license. In reality, *everybody* has to pay. If you so much as own a
> toaster which contains a CPU with is hypothetically powerful enough to
> run a TCP/IP stack, they will argue that you could mod your toaster to
> watch TV, so you need a TV license.
>
You do your credibility no good with statements like that.
You only pay the licence fee if you have a receiver that can receive UK
TV broadcasts.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> In the UK, everybody who owns a TV has to pay money to the BBC. The BBC
> therefore has no incentive at all to ever show anything. (Well, except I
> suppose that if they stopped broadcasting, the government wouldn't be too
> amused about it...) In general, the BBC used to produce some pretty
> high-quality stuff. (They also have fewER adverts.) Today, even the BBC is
> being diluted across too many channels.
But still, for the price, there are some exceptional programs and coverage
of sports events. Was there any other broadcaster in the world that covered
pretty much every winter olympic event with no adverts? Watching football
on ITV (the commercial channel) is painful, the show is essentially adverts
with breaks for the national anthems and the 45:00.0000000 halfs. Most of
the documentaries the BBC produce are world-class. I'd happily pay my
license fee for just the sport and documentaries.
> Let's face it, watching TV adverts is like a bad acid trip.
Most of them are painful to watch, yes.
> PS. In theory if you don't own a TV you don't have to pay for a TV
> license. In reality, *everybody* has to pay.
I didn't have a TV for several years and never paid. After I got the first
letter from them, I just replied and said I didn't have a TV, never heard
anything else from them after that.
> If you so much as own a toaster which contains a CPU with is
> hypothetically powerful enough to run a TCP/IP stack, they will argue that
> you could mod your toaster to watch TV, so you need a TV license.
I don't think that's quite true - they take your word for it unless they can
prove otherwise (by detecting conventional TV receiving equipment in your
home, or I guess nowadays detecting your IP address accessing live TV).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> But still, for the price, there are some exceptional programs and
> coverage of sports events. Was there any other broadcaster in the world
> that covered pretty much every winter olympic event with no adverts?
> Watching football on ITV (the commercial channel) is painful, the show
> is essentially adverts with breaks for the national anthems and the
> 45:00.0000000 halfs. Most of the documentaries the BBC produce are
> world-class. I'd happily pay my license fee for just the sport and
> documentaries.
I don't watch sport, but the BBC has David Attenborough. That alone
makes it pretty much worth it.
They also used to have all sort of other sciency stuff that I enjoyed,
but apparently dumb is the new intelligent, so we just get crap now. :-(
>> Let's face it, watching TV adverts is like a bad acid trip.
>
> Most of them are painful to watch, yes.
I especially like the advert for adverts... WTF?
>> PS. In theory if you don't own a TV you don't have to pay for a TV
>> license. In reality, *everybody* has to pay.
>
> I didn't have a TV for several years and never paid. After I got the
> first letter from them, I just replied and said I didn't have a TV,
> never heard anything else from them after that.
Really? Interesting. Obviously I've never tried this [I don't have a
house, after all], but people who do have told me that basically if you
say you don't have a TV, they won't believe you and will demand that you
pay a license anyway.
> I don't think that's quite true - they take your word for it unless they
> can prove otherwise (by detecting conventional TV receiving equipment in
> your home, or I guess nowadays detecting your IP address accessing live
> TV).
What do you mean "your" IP? I don't know about you, but my IP address
appears to change every 24 hours...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Really? Interesting. Obviously I've never tried this [I don't have a
> house, after all], but people who do have told me that basically if you
> say you don't have a TV, they won't believe you and will demand that you
> pay a license anyway.
What they probably meant is they didn't bother to inform them they didn't
have a TV, and kept receiving the reminder letters to pay. Either way they
are going to come and check your house at some point (they have a list of
households with no valid TV license).
> What do you mean "your" IP? I don't know about you, but my IP address
> appears to change every 24 hours...
And I don't know about your ISP, but mine keeps a log of who had what IP.
No idea if the TV licensing people are allowed to get this information or
not. If not they have other ways to check if you're watching live TV (like
correlating the small lighting changes visible from your windows at night
with the broadcast signal - yes they do that).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> What do you mean "your" IP? I don't know about you, but my IP address
>> appears to change every 24 hours...
>
> And I don't know about your ISP, but mine keeps a log of who had what
> IP. No idea if the TV licensing people are allowed to get this
> information or not. If not they have other ways to check if you're
> watching live TV (like correlating the small lighting changes visible
> from your windows at night with the broadcast signal - yes they do that).
I don't know how much the license fee is, but I would imagine it's
peanuts compared to the cost of such a sophisticated covert surveylence
operation...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I don't know how much the license fee is, but I would imagine it's peanuts
> compared to the cost of such a sophisticated covert surveylence
> operation...
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/detection-and-penalties-top5/
Seems quite profitable to drive round the list of addresses with no license,
you can probably pick up a few 1000 GBP fines each day :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:14:23 -0000, Jim Henderson
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:02:22 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> In the UK, everybody who owns a TV has to pay money to the BBC. The BBC
>> therefore has no incentive at all to ever show anything. (Well, except I
>> suppose that if they stopped broadcasting, the government wouldn't be
>> too amused about it...) In general, the BBC used to produce some pretty
>> high-quality stuff. (They also have fewER adverts.) Today, even the BBC
>> is being diluted across too many channels.
>>
>> I just don't watch TV any more. :-P
>>
>> Let's face it, watching TV adverts is like a bad acid trip.
>>
>> PS. In theory if you don't own a TV you don't have to pay for a TV
>> license. In reality, *everybody* has to pay. If you so much as own a
>> toaster which contains a CPU with is hypothetically powerful enough to
>> run a TCP/IP stack, they will argue that you could mod your toaster to
>> watch TV, so you need a TV license.
>
> Well, arguing about the TV license fee in the UK is something of a
> national pastime. (As you probably know, the funding it also goes to pay
> for BBC radio, which doesn't charge a license fee, and for the BBC
> website - outside the UK, we see ads unless using ad blocking software)
Used to be a Radio License then a Radio and Television Licence; in reality
it's a license to receive broadcasts and the radio bit's been dropped.
That's kind of like what Orphi was saying about if you have a tuner in
your toaster, it's up to you to prove that you're not receiving broadcasts
if you have the ability to do so. Of course this obviously applied to
computers with tuners in them; and now you don't even need that to watch
them online as the license applies to watching television that has been
broadcast even if you're not watching it via a broadcast medium.
In theory simply owning a computer connected to the internet could mean
you require a license; in practice it can be a hassle to prove.
> Comparatively speaking, though, the amount you pay for your TV license is
> far less than Cable TV costs in the US - so for me, my reaction is kinda
> like most UK residents' reactions to US people complaining about the
> price of petrol.
>
> You pay 142.50 GBP per year (about $210 at current exchange rates).
>
> For Comcast basic+digital cable, that covers only about 2.5 months worth
> of service (our cable bill is about $100/month, without any premium
> channels.
Ah but you have a choice of cable companies, we don't. Competition should
keep the prices down...lol
> What's more, most of what we watch originates in the UK on the BBC. We'd
> happily pay $214/year for what we watch, rather than damn near *$1,200* a
> year.
And you get the joy of watching adverts too.
> Just like you'd rather pay 0.49 GPB/litre (the cost our gas station down
> the block is charging for 87 octane right now) instead of 1.14 GBP/l (the
> reported average in the UK right now).
I drive past a station on the way to work and watched it go from 110.9p to
114.9p over a couple of weeks.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-3-2010 19:19, Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> PS. In theory if you don't own a TV you don't have to pay for a TV
>> license. In reality, *everybody* has to pay. If you so much as own a
>> toaster which contains a CPU with is hypothetically powerful enough to
>> run a TCP/IP stack, they will argue that you could mod your toaster to
>> watch TV, so you need a TV license.
>
> That's nothing. In Finland they are passing a law that every single
> household has to pay for TV. Yes, even people who don't own any kind of
> TV nor computer and are blind and deaf at the same time.
We used to have a license system here too.
At some point in time they realized that the number of people that did
not watch TV or listen to radio was getting very small. Keeping the
whole system with separate TV and radio licenses and a special 'police'
force that could track down violators was not very cost effective. A
cheaper, but perhaps not as fair, system was just let everybody pay.
That would result in the Finnish system.
But... Effectively this becomes a sort of tax in this way. Hence some
bright politicians made sure the system was indeed converted to a system
paid from tax money in stead of from licences (while slightly increasing
tax).
> And yes, every household pays a fixed sum. That means that if you live
> alone you will be, effectively paying double than your neighbor who is
> living with his/her spouse (at least if both of them have a job).
>
> Also if we proportionate the fixed sum to your yearly income, it means
> that the poorer you are, the more you have to pay relative to your income.
> For some people this can be a rather large sum of money.
Tax also solves that.
Which leaves the me wondering if the Finnish politicians are not
thinking the problem through or if there are other reasons for them to
support the obviously wrong solution?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|