BBC Broadband blues.
Peter Ceresole
payers'. But firing up their new console (which works fine in all other
respects) shows a resolutely modem-quality image, even if it announces 34k
download rate. I've seen a proper broadband news feed via RealPlayer from
Swiss TV, and this is nothing remotely like it.
I presume that Demon is getting a degraded feed because they still can't
reach agreement with the Beeb?
--
Peter
TC
"Peter Ceresole" <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BC1465DC9...@0.0.0.0...
> I presume that Demon is getting a degraded feed because they still can't
> reach agreement with the Beeb?
What can't demon agree to that AOL, Tiscalli, Freeserve and even smaller
people like NDO and Freenetname have agreed to?
--
TC
Phil Richards
It takes two to make an agreement. Perhaps there is something
different about Demon that the BBC have problems with.
One can't help but feel that if Demon was identical to the others
then we wouldn't be having this discussion (yet again).
phil
--
change name before "@" to "phil" for email
hugh
<to...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting
hugh
Phil Richards <sp...@derived-software.demon.co.uk> writes
>On 2004-01-02, TC <to...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Peter Ceresole" <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:BC1465DC9...@0.0.0.0...
>> > I presume that Demon is getting a degraded feed because they still can't
>> > reach agreement with the Beeb?
>> What can't demon agree to that AOL, Tiscalli, Freeserve and even smaller
>> people like NDO and Freenetname have agreed to?
>
>It takes two to make an agreement. Perhaps there is something
>different about Demon that the BBC have problems with.
>
the BBC that anyone accessing the BBCi broadband services via Demon will
be resident in the UK. AFAIAA Demon have never actually confirmed or
denied that that is the nub of the problem. AIUI the BBC are required to
exercise this constraint for one or both of the following reasons -
copyright restrictions imposed by distributors, or EU competition rules
arising because the BBC is a publicly funded body.
>One can't help but feel that if Demon was identical to the others
>then we wouldn't be having this discussion (yet again).
I think that is self evident.
Gordon Joly
Campaign launched at
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ican/G303>
Please lend your support!
Gordo
--
This is not my sig nature.....
gordo AT loop zilla.org.......
http://www.loopzilla.org/.....
Jim Crowther
<go...@loopzilla.org> writes:
>
>Campaign launched at
>
>
><http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ican/G303>
I can see something, but can do fuck-nothing using Opera. Broken site?
--
Jim Crowther "It's MY computer" (tm SMG)
Avoid more swen by dumping your old Usenet addresses, and
put 'spam' or 'delete' somewhere in the Reply-to: header.
Help yourself avoid the spam: <http://keir.net/k9.html>
Peter Ceresole
Jim Crowther <Don't_bo...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>><http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ican/G303>
>
>I can see something, but can do fuck-nothing using Opera. Broken site?
Displays and works fine using IE 5.2 and Safari 1.0, with MacOS 10.2.6.
--
Peter
Malcolm Loades
<Don't_bo...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>In message <bt4q6u$l35$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>, Gordon Joly
><go...@loopzilla.org> writes:
>
>>
>>Campaign launched at
>>
>>
>><http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ican/G303>
>
>I can see something, but can do fuck-nothing using Opera. Broken site?
Pop up blocker/ad filter software your machine, or in Opera?
I got nothing with IE until I disabled Zilla.
--
Malcolm
Gordon Joly
iCan is in Beta Test.
Anthony W. Youngman
<hugh@[127.0.0.1]> writes
>>It takes two to make an agreement. Perhaps there is something
>>different about Demon that the BBC have problems with.
>>
>As far as we are able to surmise, Demon cannot give an undertaking to
>the BBC that anyone accessing the BBCi broadband services via Demon
>will be resident in the UK. AFAIAA Demon have never actually confirmed
>or denied that that is the nub of the problem. AIUI the BBC are
>required to exercise this constraint for one or both of the following
>reasons - copyright restrictions imposed by distributors, or EU
>competition rules arising because the BBC is a publicly funded body.
But how does that guarantee they are a licence payer? If it weren't for
my family, I wouldn't be (actually, I'm not - my wife pays it ...)
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
Witches are curious by definition and inquisitive by nature. She moved in. "Let
me through. I'm a nosey person.", she said, employing both elbows.
Maskerade : (c) 1995 Terry Pratchett
Peter Ceresole
"Anthony W. Youngman" <thew...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>AIUI the BBC are
>>required to exercise this constraint for one or both of the following
>>reasons - copyright restrictions imposed by distributors, or EU
>>competition rules arising because the BBC is a publicly funded body.
>
>But how does that guarantee they are a licence payer? If it weren't for
>my family, I wouldn't be (actually, I'm not - my wife pays it ...)
I suspect that a 'best reasonable effort' would probably be okay, but that
may trip up on a Crack Legal Team's definition of 'best reasonable effort'.
Also, there way or may not be some cyberhighway somewhere in Demon's
structure that leads straight to Holland o something like that.
--
Peter
Kennedy McEwen
>>of the following reasons - copyright restrictions imposed by
>>distributors, or EU competition rules arising because the BBC is a
>>publicly funded body.
>
>But how does that guarantee they are a licence payer?
It doesn't, nor need it. Owning a license has nothing whatsoever to do
with your rights to watch or listen to BBC output.
The license is required for reasons laid out in the Wireless and
Telegraphy Act and associated legislation. The license fee is simply a
tax, just like the tax on fuel or on alcohol, but the fact that the BBC
is directly or indirectly funded from that tax just makes it one of the
few hypothecated taxes administered by HMG.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Wm...
Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>
I am not sure of the detail but my understanding is that Demon have been
unable to provide a guarantee to the BBC that *only* people resident in
the UK would be able to access the feed via Demon were the BBC to
provide it. Customers of other service providers may have the benefit
of a less alert CLT and therefore benefit :(
Perhaps I am unusual but I don't own a television (that the licensing
fee agency insists I do own a television infuriates me at times) and
don't pay the television license fee (that is not a cheat on my part as
I don't have a TV card in my computers either).
Whether or not *I* (a uk resident) should be allowed to watch BBC
Broadband is, I suspect, a minor issue.
It would be nice if Demon would say (again) that they are trying to
resolve this and how. I wouldn't mind paying the license fee to get BBC
Broadband!
--
Wm ...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting
Peter Ceresole
Kennedy McEwen <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>But how does that guarantee they are a licence payer?
>
>It doesn't, nor need it. Owning a license has nothing whatsoever to do
>with your rights to watch or listen to BBC output.
In practice it has *everything* to do with it. The Beeb are under attack,
and have been for some time, for using licence income to subsidise their
Net presence. There are interests that hate the fact that just as the BBC
make the best radio and TV in the country, using the licence fee, they are
also running the only UK site that makes any impression on the Net. Those
others want to destroy the BBC and to have the freedom to rip the public
off and supply an inferior service. The Beeb would of course be even more
vulnerable if it was perceived that their output was benefiting filthy
foreigners.
That's the political reality; nothing whatsoever to do with the legal
status of the licence fee.
--
Peter
Malcolm Loades
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
> I wouldn't mind paying the license fee to get BBC Broadband!
You must be mad!
--
Malcolm
Wm...
Malcolm Loades <news-...@justmay.be>
Is it actually not worth having? If so I can't see what the fuss is all
about, I have never actually seen it so am happy to be informed.
Malcolm Loades
>Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:03:50 <dPr302NG...@news.posting> demon.service
>Malcolm Loades <news-...@justmay.be>
>
>>In message <+TyivuRkiyAAFwd7@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm...
>><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>>> I wouldn't mind paying the license fee to get BBC Broadband!
>>
>>You must be mad!
>
>Is it actually not worth having? If so I can't see what the fuss is
>all about, I have never actually seen it so am happy to be informed.
>
can see snippets from news broadcasts, snippets only a few minutes long
from a few programmes and some trailers. No full programmes to view in
the same way you can listen to the archived radio progs. which don't
require special access arrangements. I'd hoped to view the 6 o'clock
news at a time convenient to me, but you can only view a few top line
stories.
If you know anyone using an ISP with access to BBC broadband just take 5
minutes to look at it. I'll be surprised if you considered it worth 1%
of the licence fee.
--
Malcolm
hugh
>Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:03:50 <dPr302NG...@news.posting> demon.service
>Malcolm Loades <news-...@justmay.be>
>
>>In message <+TyivuRkiyAAFwd7@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm...
>><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>>> I wouldn't mind paying the license fee to get BBC Broadband!
>>
>>You must be mad!
>
>Is it actually not worth having? If so I can't see what the fuss is
>all about, I have never actually seen it so am happy to be informed.
>
Wm...
Malcolm Loades <news-...@justmay.be>
>In message <qJ0HJnA9k8AAFw+E@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm...
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>>Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:03:50 <dPr302NG...@news.posting>
>>demon.service Malcolm Loades <news-...@justmay.be>
>>
>>>In message <+TyivuRkiyAAFwd7@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm...
>>><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>>>> I wouldn't mind paying the license fee to get BBC Broadband!
>>>
>>>You must be mad!
>>
>>Is it actually not worth having? If so I can't see what the fuss is
>>all about, I have never actually seen it so am happy to be informed.
[snip disappointing but presumably accurate description]
>If you know anyone using an ISP with access to BBC broadband just take
>5 minutes to look at it. I'll be surprised if you considered it worth
>1% of the licence fee.
I do but we tend not to, I'll try to remember to ask next time.
I am now wondering why this is an issue for some people. Is it because
"I have sent the fee so I should have it?"
Yours, sincerely
Confused in SE16
Jack
>
> I am now wondering why this is an issue for some people. Is it
> because "I have sent the fee so I should have it?"
If so, I think they are suffering from a misunderstanding. I believe
it's been pointed out here before that the licence-fee is a television
tax, hypothecated to fund the BBC. It's not a payment for service, and
doesn't provide you with any entitlements other than the right to
operate a TV set.
If you don't operate a TV set, but your ISP provides access to the BBCi
service, you can access the BBCi content without a licence.
--
Jack.
Jack
> In article <K0HX2QET...@kennedym.demon.co.uk>, Kennedy McEwen
> <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>> But how does that guarantee they are a licence payer?
>>
>> It doesn't, nor need it. Owning a license has nothing whatsoever
>> to do with your rights to watch or listen to BBC output.
>
>
> In practice it has *everything* to do with it. The Beeb are under
> attack, and have been for some time, for using licence income to
> subsidise their Net presence. There are interests that hate the fact
> that just as the BBC make the best radio and TV in the country,
They also make some of the worst, regrettably...
> using the licence fee, they are also running the only UK site that
> makes any impression on the Net.
Oh, that's a bit strong, don't you think? Many americans, to take just
one example, turn to guardian.co.uk in times of crisis, because their
domestic reporting is so conservative and parochial.
> Those others want to destroy the BBC and to have the freedom to rip
> the public off and supply an inferior service.
Reading between the lines, I presume you are referring to Murdock/Sky. I
don't think that in that case it's a question of hatred; Murdoch is in
the business of competing in a marketplace for the supply of channels,
and it's not possible to compete effectively against an operator with a
revenue-stream guaranteed by the government. At least, I think that's
Murdoch's position.
> The Beeb would of course be even more vulnerable if it was perceived
> that their output was benefiting filthy foreigners.
I think that is an obviously wrong statement. Have you ever heard of the
BBC World Service? Most people in this country regard it as a national
asset, not some kind of fraud perpetrated against Britain by "filthy
foreigners" with short-wave radios.
FWIW, I'm one of those who deplores the licence-fee. I think it's wrong
for those who are compelled to pay for a TV licence to have to subsidise
either the BBC's internet activities, or their production of BBC digital
channels to which the fee-payer doesn't necessarily have access. It's
complicated to collect (and the collecting agency is inefficient and
incompetent, not to mention highly coercive).
On the matter of distorting competition: obviously the market *is*
distorted by the fee, but it may be that the distortion is benign. But
if that's the case, the same benign effect could presumably be achieved
by subsidising the BBC out of general taxation. I'm afraid I don't buy
arguments based on the editorial independence of the BBC - a subsidy
based on the licence-fee is as much a sword of Damocles as a subsidy
from general taxation.
--
Jack.
Peter Ceresole
Jack <ja...@nospam.jackpot.uk.net> wrote:
>> using the licence fee, they are also running the only UK site that
>> makes any impression on the Net.
>Oh, that's a bit strong, don't you think? Many americans, to take just
>one example, turn to guardian.co.uk in times of crisis, because their
>domestic reporting is so conservative and parochial.
I think in terms of hits and general level of traffic, the Beeb site is one
of the few that makes any impression out there.
>> The Beeb would of course be even more vulnerable if it was perceived
>> that their output was benefiting filthy foreigners.
>
>I think that is an obviously wrong statement. Have you ever heard of the
>BBC World Service?
It's explicitly funded by the Foreign Office to broadcast to filthy
foreigners. Not by the licence fee.
>On the matter of distorting competition: obviously the market *is*
>distorted by the fee, but it may be that the distortion is benign. But
>if that's the case, the same benign effect could presumably be achieved
>by subsidising the BBC out of general taxation.
I agree. It raises other issues, like the impulse of politicians to
interfere in systems supported by taxation, much like Murdoch's gross
interference with *his* media outlets- the idea that he's simply interested
in business is simplistic; he's intereted in power. His power. But that's
not realistically on the agenda right now, as no UK government is going to
bring anything onto the government expenditure tab; they are desperately
trying to get anything they can *off* it.
And I see no indication that the market is anything but an unmitigated
disaster for broadcasting- as it is for so many other things. The market is
fine for some things, and disastrous for others. The mixed economy isn't
very fashionable, because it brings up complicated issues of balance, and
people prefer to deal in certainties (this is absolutely *not* aimed at
you, Jack) but it seems to me to be the only civilised way to go. The
degree of civilisation depends on the balance you achieve...
--
Peter
Malcolm Loades
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:43:06 <1JodFiRK...@news.posting> demon.service
>Malcolm Loades <news-...@justmay.be>
>
>>5 minutes to look at it. I'll be surprised if you considered it worth
>>1% of the licence fee.
>
>I do but we tend not to, I'll try to remember to ask next time.
>
>I am now wondering why this is an issue for some people. Is it because
>"I have sent the fee so I should have it?"
>
they're missing out on something. That's how I felt until it was
available through my ISP.
I've just been back to it to see if anything had changed on the site,
the answer is no. Here's one example of why it's useless - suppose
you're an Eastenders fan (someone must be) and missed the last episode.
There are 2 minute videos of past episodes but the most recent is from
Thursday 18 Dec 2003. There have probably been a dozen or more episodes
since then! Click on comedy and you can view a 2 minute interview with
someone at the Edinburgh Festival 2002.
The video output from a webcam at a main road junction near my house is
more riveting :-)
--
Malcolm
Chris Bell
>
> FWIW, I'm one of those who deplores the licence-fee. I think it's wrong
> for those who are compelled to pay for a TV licence to have to subsidise
> either the BBC's internet activities, or their production of BBC digital
> channels to which the fee-payer doesn't necessarily have access. It's
> complicated to collect (and the collecting agency is inefficient and
> incompetent, not to mention highly coercive).
>
I have not looked at the figures, but would guess that the total internet
service cost is a very tiny proportion of the cost of just one major TV
programme.
Digital TV appears to give a generally better quality picture, with
several multiplexed TV channels on each single analogue channel frequency,
with reduced transmitter power. My aerial is aimed at a very busy main road,
with the transmitter some distance away on the other side of a hill, so
analogue channels are now looking very sad, but my Freeview digital TV
set-top-box using the same aerial and distribution system only suffers
fairly infrequent splats. The aim is to discontinue analogue transmissions
as soon as possible, in the same way as 405 line monochrome transmissions
were discontinued. I think I have heard more requests for repeats of old
monochrome TV programmes than the monochrome 405 line system itself.
There are effectively two less digital channels than advertised, since
BBC3 and BBC4 are only transmitted when CBeebies and CBBC are off air, and
they appear to share the same two communications links. They appear to carry
relatively inexpensive new programmes plus some well chosen repeats,
including some from as far back as the early 60s.
They even managed to find and show an early monochrome BBC2 programme
that I requested, which involved finding and agreeing repeat fees with all
concerned in making the programme. The programme depicted a time "in the
future" when TV programmes would be made to occupy and passify "the masses",
with the TV ratings being all important. A chance accident, with subsequent
death in front of the cameras, led to a "reality TV" series in which all the
participants "died on camera" as they tried to survive on an isolated island.
Forget about the deaths on camera, the ratings came out top. Nothing else
matters.
--
Chris Bell
Richard Clayton
<ro...@127.0.0.1> writes
>In article <bu0v71$edh$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>, Jack
><URL:mailto:ja...@nospam.jackpot.uk.net> wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I'm one of those who deplores the licence-fee. I think it's wrong
>> for those who are compelled to pay for a TV licence to have to subsidise
>> either the BBC's internet activities, or their production of BBC digital
>> channels to which the fee-payer doesn't necessarily have access. It's
>> complicated to collect (and the collecting agency is inefficient and
>> incompetent, not to mention highly coercive).
>>
> I have not looked at the figures, but would guess that the total internet
>service cost is a very tiny proportion of the cost of just one major TV
>programme.
by 2001 the BBC are reported to have spent 152 million pounds
http://media.guardian.co.uk/bbc/story/0,7521,534011,00.html
so you might well assume it was more by now.... so you must watch some
pretty major programmes!
--
richard writing to inform and not as company policy
"Assembly of Japanese bicycle require great peace of mind" quoted in ZAMM
Phil Thompson
<news-...@justmay.be> wrote:
> I'd hoped to view the 6 o'clock
>news at a time convenient to me, but you can only view a few top line
>stories.
it runs the last news broadcast in full, for example right now I am
playing the 1 o'clock news at 256 kbps and its a 31 minute prog.
the titling and links is usually a bit behind (still says 10 o'clock
news and has links to individual items).
One disappointment is that things that are available in 34k like
Working Lunch aren't available in higher res on the broadand service.
Phil
hugh
>Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:43:06 <1JodFiRK...@news.posting> demon.service
>Malcolm Loades <news-...@justmay.be>
>
>>In message <qJ0HJnA9k8AAFw+E@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm...
>><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>>>Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:03:50 <dPr302NG...@news.posting>
>>>demon.service Malcolm Loades <news-...@justmay.be>
>>>
>>>>In message <+TyivuRkiyAAFwd7@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm...
>>>><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>>>>> I wouldn't mind paying the license fee to get BBC Broadband!
>>>>
>>>>You must be mad!
>>>
>>>Is it actually not worth having? If so I can't see what the fuss is
>>>all about, I have never actually seen it so am happy to be informed.
>
>[snip disappointing but presumably accurate description]
>
>>If you know anyone using an ISP with access to BBC broadband just take
>>5 minutes to look at it. I'll be surprised if you considered it worth
>>1% of the licence fee.
>
>I do but we tend not to, I'll try to remember to ask next time.
>
>I am now wondering why this is an issue for some people. Is it because
>"I have sent the fee so I should have it?"
>
Ian Stirling
> In message <dOC6oKQlY$AAFwJO@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm...
> <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>>Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:43:06 <1JodFiRK...@news.posting> demon.service
>>Malcolm Loades <news-...@justmay.be>
>>
>>>If you know anyone using an ISP with access to BBC broadband just take
>>>5 minutes to look at it. I'll be surprised if you considered it worth
>>>1% of the licence fee.
> I think it's only an 'issue' because those who don't have access think
> they're missing out on something. That's how I felt until it was
> available through my ISP.
>
> I've just been back to it to see if anything had changed on the site,
> the answer is no. Here's one example of why it's useless - suppose
> you're an Eastenders fan (someone must be) and missed the last episode.
> There are 2 minute videos of past episodes but the most recent is from
> Thursday 18 Dec 2003. There have probably been a dozen or more episodes
> since then! Click on comedy and you can view a 2 minute interview with
> someone at the Edinburgh Festival 2002.
You forgot that flagship offering, "Celebdaq", available in full programs...
News, sport, weather headlines (in video).
Features on various programs from CBBC to TOTP2.
As a very rough guess, I'd say there are at most a dozen half-hour programs
of some sort (all factual, of little resale value), and maybe a hundred
clips of everything from 5 songs from the last weeks TOTP2, to
the BBC1/2 idents (woo!)
I'd say at the outside there is at any one time a total of maybe four or
five hours content.
> The video output from a webcam at a main road junction near my house is
> more riveting :-)
URL?
Kennedy McEwen
<news-...@justmay.be> writes
>I went to it the first few days I had access and haven't been back. You
>can see snippets from news broadcasts, snippets only a few minutes long
>from a few programmes and some trailers. No full programmes to view in
>the same way you can listen to the archived radio progs. which don't
>require special access arrangements. I'd hoped to view the 6 o'clock
>news at a time convenient to me, but you can only view a few top line
>stories.
>
I am surprised at your comments concerning the news availability on BBC
broadband since, even from a Demon connection, you can view the BBC news
at any time of the day or night using fairly high bandwidth streams (256
- 400kbps). Whether this is a "back door" into BBC broadband that will
be closed, I can't say, but I have been using then for a couple of
months now.
BBC daily news bulletins are at the following URLs:
BBC One O'Clock News
rtsp://rmv8.bbc.net.uk/news/olmedia/n5ctrl/tvseq/news_ost/bb_news1.rm?sta
rt="00:00.0"
BBC Six O'Cock News
rtsp://rmv8.bbc.net.uk/news/olmedia/n5ctrl/tvseq/news_ost/bb_news6.rm?sta
rt="00:00.0"
BBC Ten O'Clock News
rtsp://rmv8.bbc.net.uk/news/olmedia/n5ctrl/tvseq/news_ost/bb_news10.rm?st
art="00:00.0"
Kennedy McEwen
<pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>That's the political reality; nothing whatsoever to do with the legal
>status of the licence fee.
>
political or legal reality than any of the rest of Murdoch's spewings.
No doubt when the licence fee is absorbed into general taxation it'll be
yet another "Sun that dunnit!" achievement.
The fact, both political and legal, is that the BBC is funded by the
taxpayer - ie. it is a publicly funded service. The mechanism used to
raise that tax is actually quite independent of the funding and a
historical anomaly, since hypothecated taxes have, in general, been
discontinued.
Gordon Joly
Anthony W. Youngman <de...@thewolery.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <X8W7r9H5ub9$Ew...@raefell.demon.co.uk>, hugh
><hugh@[127.0.0.1]> writes
>>>It takes two to make an agreement. Perhaps there is something
>>>different about Demon that the BBC have problems with.
>>>
>>As far as we are able to surmise, Demon cannot give an undertaking to
>>the BBC that anyone accessing the BBCi broadband services via Demon
>>will be resident in the UK. AFAIAA Demon have never actually confirmed
>>or denied that that is the nub of the problem. AIUI the BBC are
>>required to exercise this constraint for one or both of the following
>>reasons - copyright restrictions imposed by distributors, or EU
>>competition rules arising because the BBC is a publicly funded body.
>
>But how does that guarantee they are a licence payer? If it weren't for
>my family, I wouldn't be (actually, I'm not - my wife pays it ...)
>
All of the BBC web services are available worldwide via the
Internet. Why does Auntie draw the line at broadband services?
The BBC News Online service has UK and non-UK versions.
Gordo.
Gordon Joly
Even if there was access to the Freeview digital services (e.g. BBC 4
- aka BBC Knowledge - so I can watch "The Alan Clarke Diaries"
tonight:-)?
In some sense, that would suit me as well - I live in London in a area
(the shadow of Canary Wharf) were Freeview is not available.
Gordo
London E14
Andy
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote
[
>BBC daily news bulletins are at the following URLs:
>
[
Screen cleaner, immediately, please.
--
Andy
For Austria & its philately, Lupus, & much else visit
<URL:http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk/>
leo vegoda
[...]
> All of the BBC web services are available worldwide via the
> Internet. Why does Auntie draw the line at broadband services?
At a guess it's because they're expensive to provide. Although half-meg
DSL might be considered fastish broadband in the UK, it's not in the
rest of the world. I can get 8Mb/s DSL here in Amsterdam for about 50
Euros a month (plus line rental). But the Japanese have 26Mb/s DSL
available in a few cities. That's really quite good.
Countries like Korea have broadband connections for almost all the homes
that can receive it. Developed nations like these are a significant
potential sink for the BBC's broadband material. I know that BBC TV is
very popular with the non-Brits at the company I work in in Amsterdam.
That being said, I doubt Japanese homes with 26Mb/s DSL is the reason
Demon customers can't get access to the piss-poor broadband content.
> The BBC News Online service has UK and non-UK versions.
You choose which version you want when you first visit it. I think it
sets a cookie. I think it's just to help select the likely content
you'll want. I don't think it's to restrict what you can see.
Regards,
--
leo vegoda
"One size never fits all"
RFC 1925
Peter Ceresole
l...@news.lurve.org (leo vegoda) wrote:
>> All of the BBC web services are available worldwide via the
>> Internet. Why does Auntie draw the line at broadband services?
>
>At a guess it's because they're expensive to provide.
As we don't know what the 'issue'is that prevents Demon being able to
provide the broadband content, it's very hard to say. But I imagine it's
partly because broadband delivery provides something getting into the
general region of broadcast standard pictures, whereas modem delivery
doesn't even get close. So the narrowband service can be 'ignored'- winked
at if you like- whereas for the broadband service, whoever is objecting
won't look the other way.
--
Peter
Chris Bell
<URL:mailto:go...@loopzilla.org> wrote:
>
> In some sense, that would suit me as well - I live in London in a area
> (the shadow of Canary Wharf) were Freeview is not available.
>
> Gordo
> London E14
One of the suggested advantages of moving to digital TV transmission is
that re-allocating the old analogue frequencies would allow many more local
fill-in transmitters.
--
Chris Bell
David G. Bell
<ant15082...@riscpc.localdomain> ro...@127.0.0.1
"Chris Bell" wrote:
Back when it all started, there was a belief that they could sell the
released frequency spectrum to new systems, for vast sums of money.
Trouble is, the system used in the UK is a little too early a design.
There are ways of running multiple transmitters on the same frequency
without interference, so that a particular digital multiplex would be on
the same frequency everywhere.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"History shows that the Singularity started when Sir Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."
hugh
<go...@loopzilla.org> writes
>In article <xME$KdFG7u...@thewolery.demon.co.uk>,
>Anthony W. Youngman <de...@thewolery.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <X8W7r9H5ub9$Ew...@raefell.demon.co.uk>, hugh
>><hugh@[127.0.0.1]> writes
>>>>It takes two to make an agreement. Perhaps there is something
>>>>different about Demon that the BBC have problems with.
>>>>
>>>As far as we are able to surmise, Demon cannot give an undertaking to
>>>the BBC that anyone accessing the BBCi broadband services via Demon
>>>will be resident in the UK. AFAIAA Demon have never actually confirmed
>>>or denied that that is the nub of the problem. AIUI the BBC are
>>>required to exercise this constraint for one or both of the following
>>>reasons - copyright restrictions imposed by distributors, or EU
>>>competition rules arising because the BBC is a publicly funded body.
>>
>>But how does that guarantee they are a licence payer? If it weren't for
>>my family, I wouldn't be (actually, I'm not - my wife pays it ...)
>>
>
>All of the BBC web services are available worldwide via the
>Internet. Why does Auntie draw the line at broadband services?
>
As I have said earlier in this thread, and in previous other similar
threads, AIUI the BBC is required to impose this constraint either
because of EU anti-competition rules, or because of copyright
constraints or both. Demon to the best of my knowledge have never stated
to any worthwhile degree of clarity what it is that prevents them
conforming with this requirement which is beyond the control of the BBC
and nor have they ever given any indication of when there is likely to
be a resolution, if ever.
Kennedy McEwen
<ro...@127.0.0.1> writes
frequencies for TV transmission was that The Treasury made shedloads of
cash auctioning part of that range off for 3rd Gen. mobile phone use and
would be subject to major refund claims from the near bankrupt
successful bidders if they did not make them available to the agreed
schedule. Don't know if there is any truth in that, but it does fit
with the general "govern by cock-up" principle.
Richard
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>I had heard that part of the rush to close the current analogue
>frequencies for TV transmission was that The Treasury made shedloads of
>cash auctioning part of that range off for 3rd Gen. mobile phone use
>and would be subject to major refund claims from the near bankrupt
>successful bidders if they did not make them available to the agreed
>schedule. Don't know if there is any truth in that, but it does fit
>with the general "govern by cock-up" principle.
making best use of the bands allocated. They have to be turned off on
schedule or huge claims will be made. The politicians that made the
decision knew that the public would not understand the implications well
enough to affect a vote. No doubt the phone companies will be blamed
when it happens. The politicians will be long gone, having pissed the
money in to the bottomless pits of the railways and NHS, which are
perceived to gain votes. The taxpayer will have to clear up the mess.
--
Richard
Anthony W. Youngman
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>Perhaps I am unusual but I don't own a television (that the licensing
>fee agency insists I do own a television infuriates me at times) and
>don't pay the television license fee (that is not a cheat on my part as
>I don't have a TV card in my computers either).
As I said, if it weren't for my family, I'd be in the same position.
Mind you, I did get my own back at the f***w*** at the licensing
authority. They caught my daughter using a tv without a licence covering
her flat at Uni. They then threatened her to "get a licence or else!".
I was most pleased when I got a letter of apology saying yes, the
licensing gestapo had got it wrong, and yes, she did have an unlicensed
tv, and yes, she did NOT need a licence, because our home licence
covered her.
Sweet revenge :-)
Unfortunately, I didn't have quite so much luck when I moaned about the
licensing authority advert - you know the one - about the student who
gets fined for not having a licence while at Uni. Because there's no
advertising (at least in theory) on the BBC, there's no-one to regulate
BBC advertising. So when I complained that it was dishonest and
untruthful, I basically got a load of crap that "the BBC are satisfied
with the accuracy of their adverts and why am I kicking up a fuss, and
anyway the point of the adverts was to tell students to get a licence if
they need one". Seeing as the advert seemed to be saying in no uncertain
terms "if you have a tv, you need a licence", and I'd got a written
apology because the licensing gestapo had said exactly that to my
daughter, you can tell I'm not happy ...
Cheers,
Wol.
--
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
Witches are curious by definition and inquisitive by nature. She moved in. "Let
me through. I'm a nosey person.", she said, employing both elbows.
Maskerade : (c) 1995 Terry Pratchett
Anthony W. Youngman
>On the matter of distorting competition: obviously the market *is*
>distorted by the fee, but it may be that the distortion is benign. But
>if that's the case, the same benign effect could presumably be achieved
>by subsidising the BBC out of general taxation. I'm afraid I don't buy
>arguments based on the editorial independence of the BBC - a subsidy
>based on the licence-fee is as much a sword of Damocles as a subsidy
>from general taxation.
Not that I particularly give a damn about tv in general... but the
effect is not merely benign, but beneficial.
By not having to bow to the lowest common denominator in order to get
volume in order to get income (from advertising), the BBC can go for
quality over quantity. This then means that the competition (the
independent tv people) have to go for quality too, or they'll lose their
volume. Thereby dragging the average UP, rather than down.
The advantage of the licence fee is that it is somewhat harder for the
government to muck about with than if it were a grant from direct
taxation. That's not to say the licence fee is the best, or even a
particularly good solution... but when compared to government-funded
public service broadcasting abroad, I think we can be proud that our
system works relatively well.
Cheers,
Wol
Jack
> In article <bu0v71$edh$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>, Jack
> <ja...@nospam.jackpot.uk.net> writes
>
>> On the matter of distorting competition: obviously the market *is*
>> distorted by the fee, but it may be that the distortion is benign.
>> But if that's the case, the same benign effect could presumably be
>> achieved by subsidising the BBC out of general taxation. I'm
>> afraid I don't buy arguments based on the editorial independence of
>> the BBC - a subsidy based on the licence-fee is as much a sword of
>> Damocles as a subsidy from general taxation.
>
>
> Not that I particularly give a damn about tv in general... but the
> effect is not merely benign, but beneficial.
>
> By not having to bow to the lowest common denominator in order to get
> volume in order to get income (from advertising), the BBC can go for
> quality over quantity.
'Quality over quantity' - The beeb certainly goes for quantity, if we're
talking about the number of hours of material broadcast daily - they
have five free-to-air digital channels broadcasting at any one time. And
while they *can* go for quality, that doesn't mean they do. On the
contrary, they behave as if they were actually in the advertising
marketplace, and compete directly with commercial channels for BARB ratings.
> The advantage of the licence fee is that it is somewhat harder for
> the government to muck about with than if it were a grant from direct
> taxation. That's not to say the licence fee is the best, or even a
> particularly good solution... but when compared to government-funded
> public service broadcasting abroad, I think we can be proud that our
> system works relatively well.
PSB in the US is pretty good, on the whole, except when they are doing a
fund-raising drive. It's generally better than BBC1. Admittedly PBS is
not exactly government-funded though.
Hey - what's this 'government-funded' thing, anyway? Has the goverment
finally given up sponging off the likes of you and me, and gone out and
got a job or something? Perhaps you mean 'publicly-funded'?
--
Jack.
Michael McConnell
>'Quality over quantity' - The beeb certainly goes for quantity, if we're
>talking about the number of hours of material broadcast daily - they
>have five free-to-air digital channels broadcasting at any one time. And
>while they *can* go for quality, that doesn't mean they do. On the
>contrary, they behave as if they were actually in the advertising
>marketplace, and compete directly with commercial channels for BARB ratings.
5 free-to-air digital channels at any one time?
I see here (not counting BBC1 and BBC2):
BBC Three (Freeview 7)
BBC Four (Freeview 10)
CBBC (Freeview 30)
CBeebies (Freeview 31)
BBC News 24 (Freeview 40)
BBC Parliament (Freeview 45)
BBC Three shares its multiplex with CBBC - so only one of these two is on
at any one time.
The same goes for BBC Four and CBeebies.
I believe BBC Parliament to be 24 hour.
So, of these 6 channels, only 4 are on air at any one time.
I'm not counting BBCi text service channel (Freeview 51) as this is merely
an extension to their older Ceefax service, which is on air any time an
analogue TV signal is broadcast.
--
-- Michael "Soruk" McConnell
Eridani MailStripper -- www.eridani.co.uk/MailStripper -- Uncovers Everything!
/* Halley */ <--- Halley's Comment
Gordon Joly
Logic was never a strong point of BBC management.
Gordo
Gordon Joly
Phil Thompson <cynical_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:43:06 +0000, Malcolm Loades
><news-...@justmay.be> wrote:
>
>> I'd hoped to view the 6 o'clock
>>news at a time convenient to me, but you can only view a few top line
>>stories.
>
>it runs the last news broadcast in full, for example right now I am
>playing the 1 o'clock news at 256 kbps and its a 31 minute prog.
Yes. "Home Choice" does that. Or did.
I wish we had kept Home Choice, but for some reason we decided to go
to Demon. Homechoice offered a combined "video on demand + IP" package
over a BT line. I think the bandwidth was 118K. May have changed
now. Cost for the package was 35 quid a month, with films and special
channels extra. Films were charged per film.
Before Demon ADSL we had "Home Choice" over ADSL. Very nice too (BT
installed the splitter - very nice). Interactive, in the sense you
could watch a film for 24 hours, stop it and start it, as if you run
down the video shop on the rain and brought it home. Also news, soap,
re-runs galore. Whole series of most soaps were available.
Both services (PPP/IP and video) run over ATM, AFAIK
Home Choice has the same rule. The BBC or ITV news programme had to
finish, they recorded the full programme and then added it to the menu
as "the latest" at the end of the live transmission. I believe this
was legal requirement, presumably since the BBC might, at any time in
a live news programme, issue a retraction (sorta guessing here).
Watching TV over ADSL is very acceptible. Quality is OK. When I get my
Freeview pack (for digital terrestrial TV), I will offer a comparison
(here or in another forum:-).
Also, this thread seems to have put the question - is the BBC
Broadband offering worth the fuss??
Gordo,
Gordon Joly
Gordon Joly <go...@loopzilla.org> wrote:
>In article <dPr302NG...@news.posting>,
>Malcolm Loades <news...@justmay.be> wrote:
>>In message <+TyivuRkiyAAFwd7@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm...
>><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>>> I wouldn't mind paying the license fee to get BBC Broadband!
>>
>>You must be mad!
>>--
>>Malcolm
>>
>
>
>Even if there was access to the Freeview digital services (e.g. BBC 4
>- aka BBC Knowledge - so I can watch "The Alan Clarke Diaries"
>tonight:-)?
>
>In some sense, that would suit me as well - I live in London in a area
>(the shadow of Canary Wharf) were Freeview is not available.
>
Hmmm,,,,
I checked: according to the two website, reception should be possible
in my neck of the woods!
It was not a few years ago. Has there been a change? New transmitters?
Gordo
Gordon Joly
Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <K0HX2QET...@kennedym.demon.co.uk>,
>Kennedy McEwen <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>But how does that guarantee they are a licence payer?
>>
>>with your rights to watch or listen to BBC output.
>
>In practice it has *everything* to do with it.
> [snipped]
So, if I go to UK hotel, and I do *not* have a licence at home, can I
watch BBC 1 with my hot drink before I retire?
Peter Ceresole
go...@loopzilla.org (Gordon Joly) wrote:
>So, if I go to UK hotel, and I do *not* have a licence at home, can I
>watch BBC 1 with my hot drink before I retire?
Sure you can. If it offers TV, the hotel has to have a license.
--
Peter
Gordon Joly
>[...] There are interests that hate the fact that just as the BBC
>make the best radio and TV in the country, using the licence fee, they are
>also running the only UK site that makes any impression on the Net. Those
>others want to destroy the BBC and to have the freedom to rip the public
>off and supply an inferior service. The Beeb would of course be even more
>vulnerable if it was perceived that their output was benefiting filthy
>foreigners.
>
>That's the political reality; nothing whatsoever to do with the legal
>status of the licence fee.
>
>--
>Peter
But what of the BBC Education move? They are creating a Digital
Curriculum offering, susidised by the licence and BBC Education
abilities to recover part of the costs of distribution of media
You may recall hearing "send a cheque or postal order for 2 pounds to
help cover the cost of postage and packing"...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/digital_curriculum.shtml
http://media.guardian.co.uk/bbc/story/0,7521,870315,00.html
[]BBC under fire over digital curriculum
[]
[]Owen Gibson
[]
[]Wednesday January 8, 2003
[]
[]Educational publishing giants including Channel 4, Pearson and Granada
[]are expected to seek a judicial review of the BBC's charter if the
[]corporation gets the go-ahead to spend 150m of licence fee money on a
[]new digital curriculum for schools.
Gordo.
Gordon Joly
Thanks. I also note that a hotel with hundreds of rooms has a single
TV licence. But this may change...
Gordo.
Gordon Joly
leo vegoda <l...@lurve.org> wrote:
>Gordon Joly <go...@loopzilla.org> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> All of the BBC web services are available worldwide via the
>> Internet. Why does Auntie draw the line at broadband services?
>
>At a guess it's because they're expensive to provide. Although half-meg
>DSL might be considered fastish broadband in the UK, it's not in the
>rest of the world. I can get 8Mb/s DSL here in Amsterdam for about 50
>Euros a month (plus line rental). But the Japanese have 26Mb/s DSL
>available in a few cities. That's really quite good.
>
>Countries like Korea have broadband connections for almost all the homes
>that can receive it. Developed nations like these are a significant
>potential sink for the BBC's broadband material. I know that BBC TV is
>very popular with the non-Brits at the company I work in in Amsterdam.
>
>That being said, I doubt Japanese homes with 26Mb/s DSL is the reason
>Demon customers can't get access to the piss-poor broadband content.
I see all that....
>
>> The BBC News Online service has UK and non-UK versions.
>
>You choose which version you want when you first visit it. I think it
>sets a cookie. I think it's just to help select the likely content
>you'll want. I don't think it's to restrict what you can see.
>
>Regards,
>
>--
>leo vegoda
>"One size never fits all"
>RFC 1925
Sure: so why do it? Is this to do with the World Service (grant in
aid) vs. BBC News Online (licence fee funded)? We have heard that they
cross fund each other to subsidise the online output of the other
party.
It also shows that a gazillion IP packets from the BBC leave these
shores... every day of the year. It costs a lot.
And that's why they have servers in New York. So some packets, BBC
funded, going back to the UK from the USA....
Clever.
Gordo
Peter Ceresole
go...@loopzilla.org (Gordon Joly) wrote:
>Thanks. I also note that a hotel with hundreds of rooms has a single
>TV licence. But this may change...
I thought it already had... I must have been reading the discussions about
it.
--
Peter
Michael McConnell
<r...@keinspam.rootle-punkt-org> wrote:
>"Michael McConnell" <so...@bitbucket.eridani.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:slrnc0kjg8...@zeskia.int.eridani.co.uk...
>> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:30:23 +0000, Jack <ja...@nospam.jackpot.uk.net>
>wrote:
>> >'Quality over quantity' - The beeb certainly goes for quantity, if we're
>> >talking about the number of hours of material broadcast daily - they
>> >have five free-to-air digital channels broadcasting at any one time. And
>
>>
>> I see here (not counting BBC1 and BBC2):
>>
>> BBC Three (Freeview 7)
>> BBC Four (Freeview 10)
>> CBBC (Freeview 30)
>> CBeebies (Freeview 31)
>> BBC News 24 (Freeview 40)
>> BBC Parliament (Freeview 45)
>
>BBC2 - 634MHz
>CBBC | BBC3 - 634MHz
>BBC News 24 - 634MHz
>CBeebies | BBC4 - 714MHz
>BBC Parliament + news multiscreen (703) - 714MHz
>BBCi, 701, 702, Community - 714MHz
>
>> So, of these 6 channels, only 4 are on air at any one time.
>
When you said "dgital channels" I figured you meant "digital-only
channels", hence excluding BBC1 and BBC2.
>I bet you can't even see MHEG5 pages with your tatty freeview box, can you!?
I'm not choosing to make this personal. Just that some people have better
things to do with limited financial resources than swelling the coffers of
Sky (no cable here).
Andy
<go...@loopzilla.org> wrote
[
>It also shows that a gazillion IP packets from the BBC leave these
>shores... every day of the year. It costs a lot.
>
>And that's why they have servers in New York. So some packets, BBC
>funded, going back to the UK from the USA....
>
transatlantic lightening storms.
Mike
Anthony W. Youngman <de...@thewolery.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Seeing as the advert seemed to be saying in no uncertain
>terms "if you have a tv, you need a licence",
Well, they've improved now. You don't even need a telly to need a licence :)
The radio trails running at the moment are pretty much :-
"We're not joking ...
We know the address of every house in the UK without a licence ...
And every 2 minutes we knock on a licence evader's door ...
You could face a fine of 1000 pounds if you do not have a licence. [1]
Get a licence."
So ... the implication is that every house in the UK without a licence
is a licence evader. Weren't the TVL people told to discontinue an
ad campaign on buses saying "6 homes in Flooble Street, B11, don't
have licence" ... because there was the implication that those 6 houses
were engaged in evasion? ISTR that the ASA stomped on it.
[1] No mention here of a "TV reception station", so anyone who doesn't
have a licence could get fined, even if they don't have a telly/video/etc.?
Hardly!
--
--------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Mike Brown: mjb[at]pootle.demon.co.uk | http://www.pootle.demon.co.uk/
Gordon Joly
I have notices from my old address, with my name on, forwarded by the
Royal Mail. Two years. Several phone calls, several letters....
Nasty. They never let go.
The NTVLRO...
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
pe...@cara.demon.co.uk "Peter Ceresole" writes:
The TV Licensing folks have gone to the trouble of issuing posters to MoD
establishments reminding people living in messes that they require a
licence for their personal TVs in their bedrooms. Since the majority of
those living-in in our messes are officially students, would they not
fall within the remit of the earlier posting where students are exempted
if there is a valid licence "at home" (the latter presumably being their
"permanent residence")?
Ought I to bring this up at the next mess committee meeting?
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} b...@dsl.co.uk
"We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would. Yet we are
untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them".
George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919
jeff
like this:-
>In article <BC305D3E9...@0.0.0.0>
> pe...@cara.demon.co.uk "Peter Ceresole" writes:
>
>> In article <budvh3$99d$2$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>> go...@loopzilla.org (Gordon Joly) wrote:
>>
>> >Thanks. I also note that a hotel with hundreds of rooms has a single
>> >TV licence. But this may change...
>>
>> I thought it already had... I must have been reading the discussions about
>> it.
>
>The TV Licensing folks have gone to the trouble of issuing posters to MoD
>establishments reminding people living in messes that they require a
>licence for their personal TVs in their bedrooms. Since the majority of
>those living-in in our messes are officially students, would they not
>fall within the remit of the earlier posting where students are exempted
>if there is a valid licence "at home" (the latter presumably being their
>"permanent residence")?
>
>Ought I to bring this up at the next mess committee meeting?
>
According to the official website. Students are not exempt from a TV
licence.
Students
=====================================================================
Your parents' licence will not cover you away from home*
* A TV set powered by its own internal batteries - a pocket sized TV for
example - may be covered by a licence at your parents' address. If
you're in doubt, please call 0870 241 5973.
=====================================================================
--
Jeff
hugh
<b...@dsl.co.uk> writes
>In article <BC305D3E9...@0.0.0.0>
> pe...@cara.demon.co.uk "Peter Ceresole" writes:
>
>> In article <budvh3$99d$2$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>> go...@loopzilla.org (Gordon Joly) wrote:
>>
>> >Thanks. I also note that a hotel with hundreds of rooms has a single
>> >TV licence. But this may change...
>>
>> I thought it already had... I must have been reading the discussions about
>> it.
>
>The TV Licensing folks have gone to the trouble of issuing posters to MoD
>establishments reminding people living in messes that they require a
>licence for their personal TVs in their bedrooms. Since the majority of
>those living-in in our messes are officially students, would they not
>fall within the remit of the earlier posting where students are exempted
>if there is a valid licence "at home" (the latter presumably being their
>"permanent residence")?
>
>Ought I to bring this up at the next mess committee meeting?
>
exactly the opposite fact. Students DO need a license for their TVs away
from home.
leo vegoda
[...]
> The TV Licensing folks have gone to the trouble of issuing posters to MoD
> establishments reminding people living in messes that they require a
> licence for their personal TVs in their bedrooms. Since the majority of
> those living-in in our messes are officially students, would they not
> fall within the remit of the earlier posting where students are exempted
> if there is a valid licence "at home" (the latter presumably being their
> "permanent residence")?
>
> Ought I to bring this up at the next mess committee meeting?
I suggest using the person in the detector van for target practise :-)
Raj Rijhwani
b...@dsl.co.uk "Brian {Hamilton Kelly}" wrote:
> The TV Licensing folks have gone to the trouble of issuing posters to MoD
> establishments reminding people living in messes that they require a
> licence for their personal TVs in their bedrooms. Since the majority of
> those living-in in our messes are officially students, would they not
> fall within the remit of the earlier posting where students are exempted
> if there is a valid licence "at home" (the latter presumably being their
> "permanent residence")?
That's a commonly held fallacy. Students are NOT exempt. If they have
a mains-powered TV at their normal (student) residential address, they
need a TV licence. Indeed they face a 1000 pound fine without one. There
was a high-profile TV campaign covering same, all of last year. The
exmption, such as it is, covers portable TV equipment (which means
battery-operated) which is covered by the licence held by the residential
address.
To quote (from the back of the licence):
| What this licence also allows
| . Use at the premisses overleaf by any person working at or visiting the
| premises.
| . Installation/use (a) in a vehicle, boat or caravan used for touring from
| place to place, or (b) in any other caravan (provided that television is
| not being used at the licensed premises at the same time) bu the persons
| referred to overleaf and any person visiting them.
| . Use, by the persons referred to overleaf, of a television receiver
| anywhere, providing it is powered only by internal batteries.
> Ought I to bring this up at the next mess committee meeting?
No, because you'd be getting a lot of people into hot water.
(I have a sneaking suspicion I just walked straight through a pile of
sarcasm.)
--
Raj Rijhwani | This is the voice of the Mysterons...
r...@rijhwani.org | ... We know that you can hear us Earthmen
http://www.rijhwani.org/raj/ | "Lieutenant Green: Launch all Angels!"
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
hugh$sp...@raefell.co.uk "hugh" writes:
> In message <107446...@dsl.co.uk>, Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
> <b...@dsl.co.uk> writes
> >The TV Licensing folks have gone to the trouble of issuing posters to MoD
> >establishments reminding people living in messes that they require a
> >licence for their personal TVs in their bedrooms. Since the majority of
> >those living-in in our messes are officially students, would they not
> >fall within the remit of the earlier posting where students are exempted
> >if there is a valid licence "at home" (the latter presumably being their
> >"permanent residence")?
> >
> >Ought I to bring this up at the next mess committee meeting?
> >
> No, cos I think you are wrong. ISTR a series of TV ads expressing
> exactly the opposite fact. Students DO need a license for their TVs away
> from home.
Indeed; and that series of advertisements (ads on the BBC?) was mentioned
by Anthony Youngman in his <news:KFxhY0IY...@thewolery.demon.co.uk>
wherein he also mentioned that the TV licensing folks had admitted that
they were WRONG on this matter, and written a letter of apology (to him
or his daughter, or perhaps both) admitting that she did NOT require a
licence, being covered by his at home.
ISTM that the authorities (and/or BBC) are being "economical with the
truth" in the hope that many people will pay up where there is actually
no legal requirement so to do. This *really* requires clarification.
Rex M F Smith
writes
>No mention here of a "TV reception station", so anyone who doesn't
>have a licence could get fined, even if they don't have a telly/video/etc.?
>Hardly!
>
Hardly on topic but I've taken the time to attend some sets of
magistrate's hearings on "licence evasion" ...
I am, sadly, not impressed with the level of understanding the bench and
stipe I watched had ... considering they got through (each MONTH) about
a hundred cases ...
I am waiting for TVL to try it with me ... such a case would probably be
heard at Thames Magistrates Court, Bow Road, London E3
If anyone wants to "visit" ... e-mail me and I'll try to let you know
when ... it will be instructive and possibly a cheap hour's
entertainment ...
TVL's idea of "licence evasion" is simply "hasn't got one" ... I've
written to them and told them I will *never* buy one ... I've asked for
the evidence to show why I need one and asked to be removed,
permanently, from their "mailing list" :-) ... and I'm waiting for their
next move.
Since I'm on the list for "no postal junkmail" ... when they try to sell
their product again I shall have a bit of fun. TVL is handled
*commercially* by Capita and their purpose, or one purpose, is clearly
to *sell* licences ... :-)
--
Rex M F Smith
Rex M F Smith
>The TV Licensing folks have gone to the trouble of issuing posters to MoD
>establishments reminding people living in messes that they require a
>licence for their personal TVs in their bedrooms.
>Ought I to bring this up at the next mess committee meeting?
if "Stone's Justice's manual" is still in print, it's a good starting
point for anything coming before a bench of magistrates ...
Any good reference library should have one ...
have we marched into uk.legal here ?
Chris Lawrence
> ISTM that the authorities (and/or BBC) are being "economical with the
> truth" in the hope that many people will pay up where there is actually
> no legal requirement so to do. This *really* requires clarification.
I don't think any will be forthcoming, at least from the direction of
TVL. I had a licence and was able to return it for a refund when I
moved into a residence which was already covered. However TVL offered
no help in doing this and their Web pages had no information whatsoever;
I found all the information I needed on a TVL protest site somewhere.
TVL's modus operandi seems to be to spread FUD and rely on most people
to cover themselves with a licence 'just in case'. There were some
right TVL-hell horror stories on that site, must try and find it again.
--
Chris
Jim Crowther
<Admin@[127.0.0.1]> writes:
> TVL is handled *commercially* by Capita and their purpose, or one
>purpose, is clearly to *sell* licences ... :-)
The way I read this they're in for a GBP2000 fine each time they ask you
- is it me or them who is missing some point?
--
Jim Crowther "It's MY computer" (tm SMG)
Avoid more swen by dumping your old Usenet addresses, and
put 'spam' or 'delete' somewhere in the Reply-to: header.
Help yourself avoid the spam: <http://keir.net/k9.html>
Les Desser
<Don't_bo...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>In message <v7wPT7N9...@gehena.demon.co.uk>, Rex M F Smith
><Admin@[127.0.0.1]> writes:
>
>> TVL is handled *commercially* by Capita and their purpose, or one
>>purpose, is clearly to *sell* licences ... :-)
>
>The way I read this they're in for a GBP2000 fine each time they ask
>you - is it me or them who is missing some point?
>
--
Les Desser
(The Reply-to address IS correct - hope Swen ignores it))
Rex M F Smith
<leslie@[127.0.0.1]> writes
>In article <OtZ6PwSC...@nospam.at.my.choice.of.UID>, Jim Crowther
><Don't_bo...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>>In message <v7wPT7N9...@gehena.demon.co.uk>, Rex M F Smith
>><Admin@[127.0.0.1]> writes:
>>
>>> TVL is handled *commercially* by Capita and their purpose, or one
>>>purpose, is clearly to *sell* licences ... :-)
>>
>>The way I read this they're in for a GBP2000 fine each time they ask
>>you - is it me or them who is missing some point?
>>
>Please could you explain. Are you saying TVL cannot keep pestering you?
<still off-topic :-) >
I'm certainly aiming for that situation ...
I have written to them and told them not to bother me again; I've told
them I won't be buying their product ... I've told them, "if you have
evidence then prosecute" ...
Their move ... send another enquiry :-(
I am waiting for them to do it again ... then I shall pounce with all
the alacrity of a geriatric tortoise ... but I *will* pounce
Rex M F Smith
<b...@dsl.co.uk> writes
>
>ISTM that the authorities (and/or BBC) are being "economical with the
>truth" in the hope that many people will pay up where there is actually
>no legal requirement so to do. This *really* requires clarification.
>
even more serious ...
hugh
Jim Crowther
>In article <OtZ6PwSC...@nospam.at.my.choice.of.UID>, Jim Crowther
><Don't_bo...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>>In message <v7wPT7N9...@gehena.demon.co.uk>, Rex M F Smith
>><Admin@[127.0.0.1]> writes:
>>
>>> TVL is handled *commercially* by Capita and their purpose, or one
>>>purpose, is clearly to *sell* licences ... :-)
>>
>>The way I read this they're in for a GBP2000 fine each time they ask
>>you - is it me or them who is missing some point?
>>
>Please could you explain. Are you saying TVL cannot keep pestering you?
If you've never had a TV licence, then if you are registered with the
relevant authority, they have no right to phone you. No more right than
acme.com on an off-chance.
Les Desser
>In message <SPMC5GFk...@dessergroup.com>, Les Desser
><leslie@[127.0.0.1]> writes:
>
>>In article <OtZ6PwSC...@nospam.at.my.choice.of.UID>, Jim Crowther
>><Don't_bo...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>>>In message <v7wPT7N9...@gehena.demon.co.uk>, Rex M F Smith
>>><Admin@[127.0.0.1]> writes:
>>>
>>>> TVL is handled *commercially* by Capita and their purpose, or one
>>>>purpose, is clearly to *sell* licences ... :-)
>>>
>>>The way I read this they're in for a GBP2000 fine each time they ask
>>>you - is it me or them who is missing some point?
>>>
>>Please could you explain. Are you saying TVL cannot keep pestering you?
>
>If you've never had a TV licence, then if you are registered with the
>relevant authority, they have no right to phone you. No more right
>than acme.com on an off-chance.
>
and letters and letters etc.
Les Desser
Dobbs <simon...@froglet.net> writes
>On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:52:33 +0000, Les Desser wrote
>(in message <OHJFrrCx...@dessergroup.com>):
>without evidence would, to any reasonable person, and so to a court of law,
>amount to harassment. The letters stopped forthwith.
>
Wonderful. Any special address or can I find it on their site?
Worth a try, but how long have you been holding your breath? I suspect
the worm will be crawling out of the woodwork again in due course. They
maintain that they have to check in case someone new has moved in. I'm
sure they could check the electoral roll and see that is not the case.
Jim Crowther
Dobbs <simon...@froglet.net> writes:
[TV licence stuff]
>I emailed them and stated that their continued persistence in threateneing me
>without evidence would, to any reasonable person, and so to a court of law,
>amount to harassment. The letters stopped forthwith.
Excellent. :)
Wm...
<0001HW.BC360300...@news.demon.co.uk> demon.service Simon
Dobbs <simon...@froglet.net>
>>> If you've never had a TV licence, then if you are registered with the
>>> relevant authority, they have no right to phone you. No more right
>>> than acme.com on an off-chance.
>>>
>> I've never had a call - just letters and letters and letters and letters
>> and letters and letters etc.
I have never had a ph call either but that may be because I am very
firmly on the "don't telephone me" register (forget the acronym) after
an automated cold calling system (nothing to do with TVL) went wild a
few years ago and was telephoning me hourly day and night and then not
having a human available if I answered at 2 and 3 and 4 AM. That got
escalated fairly high in BT (though I never found out who it was) and I
have not been bothered on the ph since.
>I emailed them and stated that their continued persistence in threateneing me
>without evidence would, to any reasonable person, and so to a court of law,
>amount to harassment. The letters stopped forthwith.
I was getting "red letters" yelling "OFFICIAL NOTICE" so I phoned them,
gave my details, pointed out that I was the same person that was at this
address the last time someone had physically visited and been invited
inside to look around for themselves and that I did not own and had no
intention of getting a TV. The person was very pleasant said they would
note that there was no TV at this address but didn't seem very confident
it would make much difference.
I thought they might hold off for (say) 6 or 12 months but, no, three
days later I got the "TV Inspectors will be visiting your street soon,
get a licence!" letter. So although they now had a record that said I
didn't have a licence they just started from the beginning of the
procedure again. Yuk.
--
Wm ...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting
David G. Bell
tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk "Wm..." wrote:
Three days is hardly enough time to stop the letter, given the transit
time and the way these mass-mailings work.
But if they're still sending them after a few weeks, you might have a
remedy under the Data Protection Act, since they're obviously not
properly maintaining their records of personal data.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"History shows that the Singularity started when Sir Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Wm...
demon.service David G. Bell <db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk>
[snips]
Wm:
>> I was getting "red letters" yelling "OFFICIAL NOTICE" so I phoned them,
the "red letters" were not interspersed with "ordinary letters"
>> I thought they might hold off for (say) 6 or 12 months but, no, three
>> days later I got the "TV Inspectors will be visiting your street soon,
>> get a licence!" letter.
>Three days is hardly enough time to stop the letter, given the transit
>time and the way these mass-mailings work.
I was marking the point that I had been getting "red letters" and the
one after the ph call (my three days was not exact and they've all been
recycled now so can't check) was the "beginners letter" which made me
think they had merely started the cycle again.
>But if they're still sending them after a few weeks, you might have a
>remedy under the Data Protection Act, since they're obviously not
>properly maintaining their records of personal data.
I'll see what and when then next one is.
Getting even further OT I wonder what proportion of the License Fee is
now effectively a Collection Fee?
Anthony W. Youngman
<hugh@[127.0.0.1]> writes
>>> No, cos I think you are wrong. ISTR a series of TV ads expressing
>>> exactly the opposite fact. Students DO need a license for their TVs away
>>> from home.
>>
>>Indeed; and that series of advertisements (ads on the BBC?) was mentioned
>>by Anthony Youngman in his <news:KFxhY0IY...@thewolery.demon.co.uk>
>>wherein he also mentioned that the TV licensing folks had admitted that
>>they were WRONG on this matter, and written a letter of apology (to him
>>or his daughter, or perhaps both) admitting that she did NOT require a
>>licence, being covered by his at home.
>>
>>ISTM that the authorities (and/or BBC) are being "economical with the
>>truth" in the hope that many people will pay up where there is actually
>>no legal requirement so to do. This *really* requires clarification.
>>
>Does indeed, cos it had obviously fooled me.
You need to READ THE LICENCE.
Yes I did get an apology, and yes the licence people were wrong. The ad
implies that you need a licence for ANY tv. If you read the licence, it
lists certain EXplicit EXceptions, mostly for "tvs that are *not*
powered from the mains". My daughter had a tv with no mains lead or
adapter, that clearly fell within the exemptions (and the licence people
had previously confirmed from a phone call that it was exempt). But when
she told the inspectors that it was battery powered, their response was
"so what".
So students with mains-powered tvs need a licence. Battery-powered tvs
*may* be exempt - read the parents' licence and/or ring the licence
authority.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
Witches are curious by definition and inquisitive by nature. She moved in. "Let
me through. I'm a nosey person.", she said, employing both elbows.
Maskerade : (c) 1995 Terry Pratchett