BBC Licence with Cable TV Subscription
Gateway
are included by the cable company in my pay tv package but I still
have to pay a licence to the BBC so in my view I am paying twice for
the BBC channels. I don't understand why I still have to pay a BBC
licence. I can only recieve tv through my cable tv set-top box and I
have no access to a tv ariel. Is the BBC still entitled to charge me
a licence fee for watching their channels?
Thanks.
Zonky
news:f0c53005.01111...@posting.google.com:
Yes.
If you recieve any broadcast television in the UK regardless of source, you
need a TV License.
If you watch pre-recorded media (not timeshift!) DVD/VHS Etc, on a tv/video
which has the tuner permanetly disabled, you do not have to pay for a tv
license.
You do _not_ pay Cable to get BBC TV.
Z.
--
Please remove my_pants when replying by email.
David Gould
Yes and it sucks. Cable/Sky users are being forced to subsidise the
BBC. This was a deliberate decision made in the House of Lords a few
years ago I think.
simon gray
news:t8cavtobckd4tlbna...@4ax.com...
> >I have cable tv for which I pay a monthly subscription. BBC channels
> >are included by the cable company in my pay tv package but I still
> >have to pay a licence to the BBC so in my view I am paying twice for
> >the BBC channels. I don't understand why I still have to pay a BBC
> >licence. I can only recieve tv through my cable tv set-top box and I
> >have no access to a tv ariel. Is the BBC still entitled to charge me
> >a licence fee for watching their channels?
>
> Yes and it sucks. Cable/Sky users are being forced to subsidise the
> BBC. This was a deliberate decision made in the House of Lords a few
> years ago I think.
i'd really like to know just how many people who make this claim *really*
watch no bbc programming at all, & listen to no bbc radio at all, ever.
--
no war, no slaughter, no hatred - peace & reconciliation now
http://www.jobexchange.org.uk/ http://www.mp3.com/simongray
Bongo
"Zonky" <zonky@my_pants.teletubbies.net> wrote in message
news:tv9o627...@corp.supernews.com...
> If you recieve any broadcast television in the UK regardless of source,
you
> need a TV License.
>
> If you watch pre-recorded media (not timeshift!) DVD/VHS Etc, on a
tv/video
> which has the tuner permanetly disabled, you do not have to pay for a tv
> license.
Just to clarify ( or confuse ) the situation:
You need a licence to receive any publically broadcast programme services
that are transmitted/broadcast from the UK.
Broadcasts over private networks are exempt ( eg certain large hospitals )
from
the licencing requirement as are satellite broadcasts from outside the UK
( eg Al Jazeera ) as these are not licensable.
If the TVLA enquiry officer were to call he would expect to
find that none of your equipment was tuned in to any licensable service and
to
find no evidence of an aerial being attached. There is no need to
permanently
disable the tuner, simple detuning is sufficient.
Check out http://www.jifvik.org/tv/ for scans of correspondence with the
TVLA or call them direct on 08705 763763
best of luck
B
morello
news:9t3cpa$441u$1...@ID-65516.news.dfncis.de...
> "David Gould" <da...@deep-trance.com> wrote in message
> news:t8cavtobckd4tlbna...@4ax.com...
>
> > >I have cable tv for which I pay a monthly subscription. BBC channels
> > >are included by the cable company in my pay tv package but I still
> > >have to pay a licence to the BBC so in my view I am paying twice for
> > >the BBC channels. I don't understand why I still have to pay a BBC
> > >licence. I can only recieve tv through my cable tv set-top box and I
> > >have no access to a tv ariel. Is the BBC still entitled to charge me
> > >a licence fee for watching their channels?
> >
> > Yes and it sucks. Cable/Sky users are being forced to subsidise the
> > BBC. This was a deliberate decision made in the House of Lords a few
> > years ago I think.
>
> i'd really like to know just how many people who make this claim *really*
> watch no bbc programming at all, & listen to no bbc radio at all, ever.
Why shouldn't they watch BBC, if they've been forced to pay for it?
If there was an option to not pay the licence, but it meant that it was
impossible to watch BBC, I suspect a number of people would take it up.
The licence fee is a grossly unfair poll tax with its roots way back in
those ancient times when the BBC was one of the only broadcasters, and when
only the rich could afford TV. It should be scrapped and the cost of the BBC
should be met out of general taxation.
Tom
--
Morello Publishing Ltd
http://www.morello.co.uk
PuzzleTrack - create your own word search and crossword puzzles
David Gould
<{$simon$}@star-one.org.uk> wrote:
>> Yes and it sucks. Cable/Sky users are being forced to subsidise the
>> BBC. This was a deliberate decision made in the House of Lords a few
>> years ago I think.
>
>i'd really like to know just how many people who make this claim *really*
>watch no bbc programming at all, & listen to no bbc radio at all, ever.
What would that tell you? I mean, for somebody who is a large consumer
of TV, to NEVER watch something they've paid £10 a month for, is either
mad... else not one programme on the BBC is worth watching.
Which is not what I'm saying.
I think most benefits payments are too high, but I'll still claim what
I'm entitled to, what I've been paying taxes for..
Why should the consumer, and the non-terrestrial channels have to
subsidise the BBC? Fair enough if the BBC was actually doing much to
justify it's cable tax. But it isn't.
Anyway, I watched Blue Planet but that's about it in the last 5 years.
Used to listen to Radio 4 before they ruined it.
Also realise that anything good on the BBC is bought and shown by the
UKTV network a week or two later.
Steve Uzochukwu
wildly wibbled thus:
>
>Why should the consumer, and the non-terrestrial channels have to
>subsidise the BBC? Fair enough if the BBC was actually doing much to
>justify it's cable tax. But it isn't.
I think you want uk.tech.digital-tv or one of those branches for
this....
In the absence of a licence fee, how would you like to see a state
broadcaster funded?
I think you'll find that:
The majority of people think the licence fee is justified;
And that the non-terrestial channels aren't subsidising the BBC.
Licence Fee roughly 110 GBP. How many channels of TV & Radio do you
get for that? 4 or 5 Free to Air TV channels, Five major radio
networks......
>
>Anyway, I watched Blue Planet but that's about it in the last 5 years.
>
>Used to listen to Radio 4 before they ruined it.
>
>Also realise that anything good on the BBC is bought and shown by the
>UKTV network a week or two later.
>
UK Play and several other similar channels are joint ventures between
the BBC and Flextech IIRC.
--
Steve U., Yamaha XJ900S, Major Diversion ahead.
Yamaha Diversion Club Nederland Mailing List: http://www.ydcn.nl
The UKRM FAQ: http://www.windfalls.net/ukrm/ukrmfaq1.html
****************************************************************
Bongo
"Steve Uzochukwu" <ste...@which.net> wrote in message
news:3bf6a72b...@news.which.net...
> The majority of people think the licence fee is justified;
I think that just over half of households in England have a dish washing
machine. Such people have clearly shown that they thought the
expenditure was justified. But should they have the right to legally
force their opinion on people who wash their dishes by hand? Of
course not.
>
> And that the non-terrestial channels aren't subsidising the BBC.
>
I have a VCR/TV which are not tuned in and have no aerial attached.
I have no licence but would like to be able to watch Channel 4 News
and nothing else, ever, absolutely nothing else. I am legally obligated
to hand over £109 to the agents of the BBC if I try to exercise
my preference.
morello
news:3bf6a72b...@news.which.net...
> I think you'll find that:
>
> The majority of people think the licence fee is justified;
>
Really?
A pensioner, living alone, watching a little telly bought for ten quid at
the car boot sale has to pay the full licence fee.
A family of with both parents plus several adult children, all with well
paid jobs, a decent TV in every room plus an 8 grand home cinema in one of
the lounges, pay NOTHING, because granny who lives with them is over 75.
Most people would not see that as fair, I think.
There is no problem with an average family paying about a hundred quid a
year for the BBC, it is probably pretty good value. It is the grossly unfair
anomalies with non-average households which make the system so wrong.
We already have a system for dealing with this - its called income tax.
David Gould
wrote:
>In the absence of a licence fee, how would you like to see a state
>broadcaster funded?
I wasn't actually proposing abolishing the license fee. As a cable
subscriber, I'd be happy paying a third.
I support the idea of a state broadcaster but I can't see why they have
to bid for expensive sporting events and imports.
>I think you'll find that:
>
>The majority of people think the licence fee is justified;
Justified for recent BBC output? No chance.
>And that the non-terrestial channels aren't subsidising the BBC.
Of course they are. Anyone who gets cable has to pay a license fee.
That's money they probably won't use to subscribe to cable channels.
>Licence Fee roughly 110 GBP. How many channels of TV & Radio do you
>get for that? 4 or 5 Free to Air TV channels, Five major radio
>networks......
Except that only 2 of the TV channels are BBC.
>UK Play and several other similar channels are joint ventures between
>the BBC and Flextech IIRC.
Really? They show a lot of ITV/C4 stuff as well.
Steve Uzochukwu
wildly wibbled thus:
>On Sat, 17 Nov 2001 18:36:30 GMT, ste...@which.net (Steve Uzochukwu)
>wrote:
>
>>And that the non-terrestial channels aren't subsidising the BBC.
>
>Of course they are. Anyone who gets cable has to pay a license fee.
>That's money they probably won't use to subscribe to cable channels.
That's opportunity cost IIRC, not subsidy. This isn't the definition
of subsidy used by the EU or most other bodies when the issue of
subsidy is looked at.
>
>>Licence Fee roughly 110 GBP. How many channels of TV & Radio do you
>>get for that? 4 or 5 Free to Air TV channels, Five major radio
>>networks......
>
>Except that only 2 of the TV channels are BBC.
>
BBC1, BBC2, News 24, BBC Choice, and possibly Knowledge if its not
subscription. Thats 4/5 Free to Air BBC *TV* channels.
>>UK Play and several other similar channels are joint ventures between
>>the BBC and Flextech IIRC.
>
>Really? They show a lot of ITV/C4 stuff as well.
And how does this refute the previous statement?
Terry
Steve Uzochukwu wrote:
> Licence Fee roughly 110 GBP. How many channels of TV & Radio do you
> get for that? 4 or 5 Free to Air TV channels, Five major radio
> networks......
My comment: 110 GB pounds.
Seems expensive. That's roughly $260 Canadian.
Although we are over 1000 miles from all major North American population
centres that's approximately what we pay (including sales tax!) for
seven to eight months of cable service, no licence fee, for 45 to 50
channels, which includes Canadian Broadcasting Corp. all major US
channels and admittedly a number of commercial advertising, weather and
a programme schedules channels.
We have the basic service plus one additional package. The only
significant item we miss is 'The History Channel' but subscribing to
another package of six to eight more channels for a few more bucks a
month did not seem worth while just to get that one! There is too much
TV anyway; 24 hours a day!
There is a move afoot, caused by a major protest within last couple of
years when cable companies slightly increased the monthly charge and
repackaged some of the channels into one of the 'extra charge' package
options, to be able to subscribe ONLY TO THOSE CHANNELS YOU WANT. In
other words the cable company 'blew it'; not knowing that the cost had
reached the point where customers said "Enough". However whether it will
make much overall difference in what the monthly charge will be is
uncertain. They have to get a certain amount of revenue to stay in
business!
BTW when we had our high speed internet connection also via the local
cable TV company there was a $10 per month discount on the cable TV
service for doing so. Instead of around $34/month as above, it was
around $23/month. Almost 11 months of cable service for $260!
However there were advantages to us in changing over the the telco
provided DSL which is less 'shared' with other customers in the local
node.
I guess the situation in UK is different; but, if a majority of people
in the UK started watching TV programmes, via satellite or the internet
or by whatever means, not originating in the UK, no licence fee would be
needed?
Could be like Radio Luxembourg and Radio Caroline all over again.
Licence fees and the accompanying bureaucracy seems like a 'fussy' way
to fund Auntie! Question? Do you have to pay that 110 Quid all in one
lump, in January? Or the anniversary of the original licence? What
occurs if you move house? Or is it a monthly fee? Must be a horror (and
costly) to administer?; even in a compact country such as Britain?
Just an opinion; and question?
Eastern Canada.
Tony Bryer
> Licence fees and the accompanying bureaucracy seems like a 'fussy'
> way to fund Auntie! Question? Do you have to pay that 110 Quid all
> in one lump, in January? Or the anniversary of the original
> licence? What occurs if you move house? Or is it a monthly fee?
> Must be a horror (and costly) to administer?; even in a compact
> country such as Britain?
You can pay one lump sum or by instalments. The licence is valid for
12 months from when issued, and if you move you get it transferred
to your new address. It's fairly easy to administer because houses
don't move and effectively it's the house that is being licensed not
the person. The people who do have problems are those who do not own
a TV because the licensing authorities find this impossible to
believe.
The plus side is that over here an episode of the Simpsons is an
unbroken 21:37 instead of 30 minutes padded out with adverts.
Cable TV is not cheap here: my mother has the basic channel package
and it is something like Ł18 a month, twice the ordinary licence and
half as good (after the first month when 90% is repeats)
Tony Bryer
Bongo
"Terry" <tsan...@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3BF9764C...@nf.sympatico.ca...
> Must be a horror (and
> costly) to administer?; even in a compact country such as Britain?
>
> Just an opinion; and question?
> Eastern Canada.
You're absolutely right Terry. The TV licence costs the BBC £132m to collect
in 2000
-2001 or about 6% of the total raised. That might make the system look quite
efficient but afaik the Inland Revenue's collection costs are <1.5% of the
amount raised.
In addition the taxpayer has to bear much of the cost of enforcing the
system.
Over 100,000 people are prosecuted annually for evasion and the cost of
all the administration , fine enforcement officers , warrants for the arrest
of non-
payers and ultimately jail for wilful defaulters is a not inconsiderable
burden on
our legal system.
What is also galling is the profile of those caught. They are often
unemployed or
have children to care for, which is why they were at home during the day
when
the inspector called. They are typically fined £170 in total ( this varies a
lot ) and
are told by the Magistrates that they also have to buy a licence as well.
They have
to pay full price for the licence even though they don't have a computer (
so no bbc
internet content ever reaches them ) and they neither want nor can afford
digital
hardware ( so 3 of the BBC's 5 FTA channels never reach them ).
It's a system that shames us. That's just an opinion.
B
Terry
> "Terry" wrote:
> > Must be a horror (and
> > costly) to administer?; even in a compact country such as Britain?
Then Bongo wrote:
> You're absolutely right Terry. The TV licence costs the BBC £132m to collect
> in 2000
> ..................snip......................
Thanks for the information and comment. Seems like a huge waste of
resources?
I get frustrated, often, with the slowness and inefficiency of many of
our Canadian bureaucratic/political
systems. But that BBC licence seems ridiculous! And unfair.
Of course I think trying to enforce such a licence in Canada would be
well nigh impossible with our far flung communities. I can just imagine
the 'Rumour mill' at work.
"Hey George. Did you know the Dept. of Communications have rented the
chopper (helicopter) to fly over to ABCD next Tuesday. Apparently they
are going to snoop for illegal satellite TV dishes." "Yep; I heard.
Everybody's busy hauling them out to the woods on their skidoos or
burying them in the 50 centimetres of snow we had last week!".
Could be as much fun as illegal rum running from St. Pierre et Miquelon
to mainland Canada!
Those of us who don't really mind the cost or have the technical
expertise to get around the rules are not likely to be prosecuted
anyway. As you indicate it is the unfortunate that get penalized. But
surely this is not a good way to encourage the use of any medium?
Similarly the traditional North American LOCAL telephone service is a
flat monthly fee, typically 15 to 25 quid per month. No matter how often
or how long you speak. As a result it has for a long while been one of
the best in the world with a very high number of phones per 100 of
population.
Cheers!
simon gray
> >> Yes and it sucks. Cable/Sky users are being forced to subsidise the
> >> BBC. This was a deliberate decision made in the House of Lords a few
> >> years ago I think.
> >
> >i'd really like to know just how many people who make this claim *really*
> >watch no bbc programming at all, & listen to no bbc radio at all, ever.
>
> What would that tell you? I mean, for somebody who is a large consumer
> of TV, to NEVER watch something they've paid £10 a month for, is either
> mad... else not one programme on the BBC is worth watching.
>
> Which is not what I'm saying.
that's good, cos that's not what i was saying, either.
i'm questioning how many people who claim to *never* watch / listen to bbc
programming (thus feeling they should be exempt from the license fee)
*really* never do so.
simon gray
> >Licence Fee roughly 110 GBP. How many channels of TV & Radio do you
> >get for that? 4 or 5 Free to Air TV channels, Five major radio
> >networks......
>
> Except that only 2 of the TV channels are BBC.
bbc1
bbc2
bbc choice
bbc knowledge
bbc news 24
bbc parliament
Steve Uzochukwu
wildly wibbled thus:
>
>I guess the situation in UK is different; but, if a majority of people
>in the UK started watching TV programmes, via satellite or the internet
>or by whatever means, not originating in the UK, no licence fee would be
>needed?
>Could be like Radio Luxembourg and Radio Caroline all over again.
Programmes watched via the Interent would not trigger a licence fee.
Watching via satellite or cable requires a licence regardless of the
origin of the material.
>
>Licence fees and the accompanying bureaucracy seems like a 'fussy' way
>to fund Auntie! Question? Do you have to pay that 110 Quid all in one
>lump, in January? Or the anniversary of the original licence? What
>occurs if you move house? Or is it a monthly fee? Must be a horror (and
>costly) to administer?; even in a compact country such as Britain?
>
It can be paid by direct debit in monthly chunks; it is due on the
expiry of the anniversary old licence, not Jan every year.
Its fairly easy to administer as the majority of households have TVs,
any TV purchase new gets reported to the TV Licence authorities, and
detector vans catch the dodgers.
Gateway
No, but BBC TV is provided by my cable tv company by default. It is
not optional. Without cable I have no other means of receiving tv.
>
> Z.
I don't have a problem with requiring a licence or with the BBC. What
I do have a problem with is paying an additional cost for it when it
is the cable company that is providing it. I never asked them to
include it in my tv package. It is provided by default. If I didn't
have cable I could not watch BBC or any other tv channel. So
shouldn't the cost of the bbc licence fee be a portion of my monthly
subscriptions?
Terry
Steve Uzochukwu wrote: In response to <tsan...@nf.sympatico.ca>
> Programmes watched via the Interent would not trigger a licence fee.
> Watching via satellite or cable requires a licence regardless of the
> origin of the material.
OK.
So watching any particular 'program' digitally over the internet, which
is a growing trend I believe (I frequently watch the BBC News here in
Canada!) would NOT be licensable.
If however (in the UK) I receive any TV signal digital or analogue
whether it originates in the UK or not, by means of off air, by cable or
via a satellite dish it is licensable! Even if I ONLY watched Al-jezera?
Gosh thinking back to the days of 'Radio Licenses', I used to listen to
Radio Moscow and Voice of America and never even thought about buying a
license on student's pocket money!
> It's fairly easy to administer as the majority of households have TVs,
> any TV purchase new gets reported to the TV Licence authorities, and
> detector vans catch the dodgers.
That reporting new TV sales sounds very 'Police Stateish' to me! Might
put you in the position of having to prove that one does not use it to
watch TV 'programmes'. I wonder what else gets reported? Military style
boots or shoes maybe? Or "Equipment capable of .????.. "! Here in Canada
have never bought a new TV!
We have, let me count .... Family room, son's room, my room, the
computer room, one old TV connected to an older style computer, another
one bought surplus from a hotel redecoration for 10 bucks (colour and
built in AM-FM radio too!), a couple of black and white portables which
still work ...... One somebody gave us to keep "if it is worth fixing"
if I can fix I'll donate that to someone at the seniors home. A total of
say 8 or 10 TVs. Not worth selling any of them not that we watch that
much TV anyway!
So if in the UK the detector vans would find us if unlicensed? Thank
goodness it is the USE (or action) I make of that equipment that must be
licensed not just the possession of it! Our part time house guest
infrequently uses a computer equipped with a TV channel card to watch
TV, avoids a second screen/monitor. Guess that in the UK in a separate
apartment/flat that computer would require a TV license too? Hey I
wonder about my son's laptop?
Anyway thank goodness we don't have to worry about it in North America.
Bryan Souster
"Gateway" <gatew...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f0c53005.0111...@posting.google.com...[snip]
> > You do _not_ pay Cable to get BBC TV.
>
> No, but BBC TV is provided by my cable tv company by default. It is
> not optional. Without cable I have no other means of receiving tv.
> I don't have a problem with requiring a licence or with the BBC. What
> I do have a problem with is paying an additional cost for it when it
> is the cable company that is providing it. I never asked them to
> include it in my tv package. It is provided by default. If I didn't
> have cable I could not watch BBC or any other tv channel. So
> shouldn't the cost of the bbc licence fee be a portion of my monthly
> subscriptions?
So lets say your cable company offers you the BBC as optional and includes
the licence costs only in the package that includes the BBC. You take the
non-BBC package and turn on your radio (which is capable of receiving BBC
Radio even if you don't ever tune in) therefore becoming a licence dodger.
The current system is fairer - if you are capable of receiving BBC program
content (regardless of whether you do or not) you are liable to pay the
licence the licence fee. Under the current setup with your cable company you
are required to have a licence to subscribe to the service (because BBC
content is mandatory) - which I suspect is no additional cost to most.
Bryan.
David Gould
<nota...@notadomain.invalid> wrote:
>So lets say your cable company offers you the BBC as optional and includes
>the licence costs only in the package that includes the BBC. You take the
>non-BBC package and turn on your radio (which is capable of receiving BBC
>Radio even if you don't ever tune in) therefore becoming a licence dodger.
You don't need a license to have a radio or tune into BBC radio. TV
viewers are already subsidising BBC radio listeners.
The moral questions are simple:
1) Should the state subsidise the BBC?
2) If so, how?
My only real concern is that the BBC doesn't do enough to justify the
license fee.
>The current system is fairer - if you are capable of receiving BBC program
>content (regardless of whether you do or not) you are liable to pay the
>licence the licence fee.
How on earth is that fair? That's like, if I come and sit next to you,
and smoke cigarettes, you have to pay me because you are capable of
getting a buzz from my passive smoking.
>Under the current setup with your cable company you
>are required to have a licence to subscribe to the service (because BBC
>content is mandatory) - which I suspect is no additional cost to most.
No additional cost, except the cost of the license fee of course.
David Lodge
<{$simon$}@star-one.org.uk> wrote:
>i'm questioning how many people who claim to *never* watch / listen to bbc
>programming (thus feeling they should be exempt from the license fee)
>*really* never do so.
Me for one - about 3 years ago I moved house and decided to not have a
TV/video - and I don't watch it, I don't feel I'm missing anything by
this.
In the rare event of there being a program I *really* want to watch I
buy the DVD (watched on computer)
dave
Terry
martinp wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 15:42:10 -0330, Terry <tsan...@nf.sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> > Anyway thank goodness we don't have to worry about it in North America.
>
> You don't have to worry about it here either.
> You are the weakest link
> Good Bye!
OK. Martin: Touche! Fair comment.
But as an ex Brit. (BTW she's great isn't she? We see "The weakest Link"
via US TV)) after a break of nearly 50 years just trying to re-establish
some knowledge of (and sometimes 'get a bit of a rise' out of, I must
admit!) what UK consumers now experience in their daily lives.
Also I may be living 'over there' for a while! And I have immediate UK
relatives too.
So far on the basis of only one visit in over 40 years, and
participation in various ng 'discussions' the UK appears to be a) More
Expensive b) A much more regulated society c) Well organized d)
Civilized/polite e.g. the drivers and roads are much better than over
here e) UK housing, well built, expensive, generally smaller and more
tightly packed than here etc. etc. f) Utilities e.g. electrical wires
generally underground whereas here a skyful of electrical, telephone
and cable TV wires is considered 'normal' g) The UK postal system more
efficient h) An expensive telephone system; payment by the minute or
second compared to North American flat monthly rates for 'local
telephone service'. g) Probably higher UK ATM and bank charges
generally?
Conclusion; much of this may be absolutely necessary for the UK which is
so much more densely populated, in order for it's society to work
efficiently. But of course one tends to look at things personally and
ideas such as "Could I afford to live in the UK when gas/petrol is twice
the price?" and so on, are of interest.
What I earned annually in the 1950s (about 3 quid a week! If I worked
continuously) as a school leaving UK apprentice would today just pay
that TV license fee with a little bit left over!
Thanks for the comment though. Terry.
Zonky
> My only real concern is that the BBC doesn't do enough to justify the
> license fee.
OTOH, ITV, C4 & C5 cost the average consumer ~£150 per year in their
shopping bill.
simon gray
> So far on the basis of only one visit in over 40 years, and
> participation in various ng 'discussions' the UK appears to be
[...]
> b) A much more regulated society
i've heard the book (by andrea dworkin) which was the 'inspiration' for
canada's draconian censorship laws is actually prohibited by those same
censorship laws.
[...]
> g) Probably higher UK ATM and bank charges
i can't actually remember the last time i've ever paid any bank or atm
charges.
[...]
still, at least canada did successfully invade the usa & burn its capitol to
the ground.
--
no war, no slaughter, no hatred - peace & reconciliation now
http://www.birmingham-alive.com/ http://www.mp3.com/simongray
simon gray
> > My only real concern is that the BBC doesn't do enough to justify the
> > license fee.
>
> OTOH, ITV, C4 & C5 cost the average consumer ~£150 per year in their
> shopping bill.
quite - i at least have a choice to not pay for a telly license to pay for
the bbc, because i can not have a telly; i have no such choice to not pay
for itv, because (in the real world) i have no choice to not buy products
which buy tv advertising.
simon gray
news:3bfc42ad...@news.ntlworld.com...
> >i'm questioning how many people who claim to *never* watch / listen to
bbc
> >programming (thus feeling they should be exempt from the license fee)
> >*really* never do so.
>
> Me for one - about 3 years ago I moved house and decided to not have a
> TV/video - and I don't watch it, I don't feel I'm missing anything by
> this.
well that's fine for you, you don't need to buy a telly license so you've
nothing to complain about.
--
no war, no slaughter, no hatred - peace & reconciliation now
http://www.birmingham-alive.com/ http://www.mp3.com/simongray
David Gould
<{$simon$}@star-one.org.uk> wrote:
>i have no choice to not buy products which buy tv advertising.
Try an aluminium hat. I'm told they work very well.
Bongo
advertised on commerical TV is one I don't understand.
Let's assume that say Cadburys
have a new product to promote, then they allocate a budget to a
marketing team to spend in the most effective way possible. If the
marketing team are doing their job right ( not always true, but lets just
say
that Cadburys marketeers know what they're doing ) then they will
promote the new product in the most cost-effective way which in their
opinion might be at during Corrie for exapmple. If we stopped
Cadburys from advertising on TV then the retail price of the product might
have to rise because they would have to promote their product in a less
efficient way. So the argument that the existence of commercial TV actually
leads to higher prices in the shops seems very suspect to me.
Hope that all made sense.
B
"simon gray" <{$simon$}@star-one.org.uk> wrote in message
news:9tivpl$2r2b2$1...@ID-65516.news.dfncis.de...
simon gray
news:28gqvtg9i614hret1...@4ax.com...
> >i have no choice to not buy products which buy tv advertising.
>
> Try an aluminium hat. I'm told they work very well.
you must be very gullible if you believe everything you're told.
--
no war, no slaughter, no hatred - peace & reconciliation now
http://www.jobexchange.org.uk/ http://www.mp3.com/simongray
simon gray
news:nSfL7.3656$L.85...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> The argument argument that you pay higher prices for goods
> advertised on commerical TV is one I don't understand.
> Let's assume that say Cadburys
> have a new product to promote, then they allocate a budget to a
> marketing team to spend in the most effective way possible. If the
> marketing team are doing their job right ( not always true, but lets just
> say
> that Cadburys marketeers know what they're doing ) then they will
> promote the new product in the most cost-effective way which in their
> opinion might be at during Corrie for exapmple. If we stopped
> Cadburys from advertising on TV then the retail price of the product might
> have to rise because they would have to promote their product in a less
> efficient way. So the argument that the existence of commercial TV
actually
> leads to higher prices in the shops seems very suspect to me.
well, on this we can only speculate as to this , because there's no easy way
to set up a control experiment. though that said, 'non brand name' products
which do not have the marketing budgets of 'brand name' ones & are cheaper
are not always nastier, & are indeed sometimes nicer.
anyway, that's a bit of a diversion from the point - which is that the
complaint is made that telly watchers have to buy a telly license whether
they watch bbc or not, but at least it is possible to get away from
'funding' the bbc, because you can choose to not have a telly or choose to
break the law. in the real world, you *can't* choose to not fund independant
telly.
--
no war, no slaughter, no hatred - peace & reconciliation now
http://www.jobexchange.org.uk/ http://www.mp3.com/simongray
Tony Bryer
wrote:
> If we stopped
> Cadburys from advertising on TV then the retail price of the product
> might have to rise because they would have to promote their product
> in a less efficient way. So the argument that the existence of
> commercial TV actually leads to higher prices in the shops seems
> very suspect to me. Hope that all made sense.
But if the Cadbury's advertising persuades you to buy one of their
products instead of a Mars bar, Mars have two options: increase their
prices to allow for the fact that fewer sales have to cover all their
fixed costs, or counter-advertise. At which point you are back where
you started but both now have to add in the cost of advertising to
their products.
Tony Bryer
David Lodge
<{$simon$}@star-one.org.uk> wrote:
>> >i'm questioning how many people who claim to *never* watch / listen to
>bbc
>> >programming (thus feeling they should be exempt from the license fee)
>> >*really* never do so.
>> Me for one - about 3 years ago I moved house and decided to not have a
>> TV/video - and I don't watch it, I don't feel I'm missing anything by
>> this.
>well that's fine for you, you don't need to buy a telly license so you've
>nothing to complain about.
What I winge about is the amount of hassle I get from Envision -
inspectors come around (always during working hours), threatening
letters through the door.
When I actually phoned them once they told me that they'll *still*
contact me in 6 months time just to make sure I haven't brought a TV.
Plus when you add the advertising campaign - I wonder why they make
people who don't have a TV look like criminals?
dave (Don't watch TV - use the internet for everything :-)
Terry
> TV in a hall of residence is expected to pay UKP105 per annum although
> they are only resident for about 60% of the year and UKP105 is big
> money for a student.
Big money here too, on a pension!
Roughly $260 Canadian.
Although our education system is almost entirely publicly funded; that
is approx half of of an annual 'Recognition for effort' bursary I give
to the local school in the name of my late wife.
Thanks for the discussion.
Cheers. Terry.
David Gould
<{$simon$}@star-one.org.uk> wrote:
>> >i have no choice to not buy products which buy tv advertising.
>>
>> Try an aluminium hat. I'm told they work very well.
>
>you must be very gullible if you believe everything you're told.
You must be very gullible if you buy everything you're told.
David Gould
wrote:
>idiot.
Sorry, didn't know. Maybe you could put it in your name somewhere, help
avoid these pointless threads.