In uk.tech.tv.sky G.Jones wrote:
:
:BBC responsibilty extends to ALL licence payers, not just those who
:view it's channels..

: I agree with you completely on this. I've just written to 'Have Your
: Say' on the BBC website, making these exact same comments.

Especially since the BBC *invented* the FTV card scheme as, at that time,
it was virtually the ONLY means for many people to receive free BBC
Digital channels (and widescreen). Many people were not in range of DTT
transmitters (and some still are not) and it was (apart from IDTVs) very
hard to buy an OnDigital receiver outright.

I somehow feel that the BBC has abandoned these people!

"Brian McIlwrath" wrote in message
...
In uk.tech.tv.sky G.Jones wrote:
:
:BBC responsibilty extends to ALL licence payers, not just those who
:view it's channels..

: I agree with you completely on this. I've just written to 'Have Your
: Say' on the BBC website, making these exact same comments.

Especially since the BBC *invented* the FTV card scheme as, at that time,
it was virtually the ONLY means for many people to receive free BBC
Digital channels (and widescreen). Many people were not in range of DTT
transmitters (and some still are not) and it was (apart from IDTVs) very
hard to buy an OnDigital receiver outright.

I somehow feel that the BBC has abandoned these people!

They didn't invent the FTV scheme, under law BSkyB are required to give free and
fair access to their platform, this means any group could come along tomorrow
and resurrect the Solus scheme. Sky themselves were offering one off
Free-To-View packages completely separate from the BBC funded FTV cards.

How is the status of ITV/C4/Five anything to do with the BBC, do they secretly
control these other broadcasters without us realising? The BBC themselves are
FTA to anyone with a basic DVB-s receiver or old digibox, that's not abandoning
anyone.

The commercial broadcasters were freeloading the FTV scheme and despite being
given over three months notice of the BBC's intention to drop conditional
access... they did nothing. This is a wider question of Sky's monopoly and the
other public service broadcasters willingness and complicity to cement that
monopoly, it's not a naive blame game where everyone can just go pointing
fingers at the Beeb.

Az.

In uk.tech.tv.sky Aztech wrote:

: How is the status of ITV/C4/Five anything to do with the BBC, do they
: secretly control these other broadcasters without us realising? The BBC
: themselves are FTA to anyone with a basic DVB-s receiver or old digibox,
: that's not abandoning anyone.

I would utterly disagree with all the above!

1) Because of their very privileged funding (from all of us!) AND their
history the BBC *DOES* have a clear lead postition and a responsibility to
both the public and other broadcasters (where it impacts the public).

2) The BBC *DID* solely invent the FTV card scheme at a time when they were
being severly criticised about "wasting" money on digital channels that
effectively (as they were then no DTT STBs for purchase) needed a subsciption
to watch. For better or worse people have come to RELY ON the FTV cards
as meaning BBC, ITV, C4 and C5 (ie. ALL the "terrestrials").

For the BBC to pull out of the FTV scheme just beacuse it does not suit THEM
any longer still seems very wrong. The MANY people who acquired Digiboxes
on the strength of the BBCs backing (and who still may still be in areas not
served by DTT) *ARE* being abandoned!

As other people have pointed out, the BBCs projected savings from going
FTA are fast evaporating!

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 00:05:49 GMT, "Aztech" pausing to
cast envious glances at those who had mastered the skill of reading
without moving their lips, wrote:

The BBC are responsible for themselves only, ITV, C4 and five are their own
concern. The privileged method of funding is tied to a strict charter,

Where in the BBC Charter does it mention that it will spend money
providing satellite radio relay of R2 and R4, for the benefit only of
people living in mainland Europe?

Exactly, such a service would a breach of the charter because it does nothing to
benefit licence payers in the UK. Paying for FTV cards solely for the benefit of
ITV/C4/five would also be a breach.


that doesn't include cross subsiding commercial broadcasters, especially
when this scheme is no longer used by the BBC themselves.

But the BBC itself is dependent on a scheme not used by other UK
broadcasters - The licence fee.
Other broadcasters rely on income from advertising or subscription. It
can therefore be argued that by those other broadcasters not having
any income from the licence fee, they are cross-subsidising the BBC.

Err... that is the most nonsensical twisted logic I've encountered this week.
The licence fee is to fund the BBC, the money is spent by the BBC on providing
services for the BBC, via the BBC. The commercial broadcasters as a whole
collect far more than the £2.4b licence fee equivalent from subscriptions and
advertising, they do not give any of it the BBC, therefore they aren't cross
subsiding anyone. Only the public subsidise commercial broadcasters by having to
pay invisible levies on everything they buy.


The cynical might suggest that the BBC only became interested in the
notion of FTA off the satellite, when various politicians started
suggesting that maybe the licence fee should be replaced by an annual
subscription-card bought by those viewers who wanted the BBC and which
would decrypt BBC channels.

Except Sky are still present and so is their conditional access, so they could
be forced back into such a scheme if the political will existed, that's where
Freeview comes in.


Do you see a pattern emerging? I really don't see how the BBC fit into any of
the above dealings between private companies and BSkyB, unless you believe
the
BBC should waste licence payers money on things they have no need for, maybe
they could also pay your mortgage to boot.

Like the planned relay of R2 and R4 to Europe you mean?

Exactly, I haven't seen a firm commitment to provide this service but if they do
go ahead it would be an abuse of the licence fee. No doubt they will find a
crafty way of avoiding dual illumination by also using 2B for the UK.


But, at the time they announced their FTA plans, they placed great
emphasis on the savings they would be making. You can still read
their announcements from that time, on the BBC website.

They have decided to break with a system that leads to ever spiralling costs
every time the contract is renewed, this isn't a good way of spending the
licence fee. Some of the savings have been spent providing many regional
variations on DSat, this benefits the licence payer rather than BSkyB's pocket.

That still doesn't change the inertia found at ITV/C4/five and five, they've had
many months notice of this change yet they have done nothing to help their
viewers.

Az.

wrote in message

I don't recall the BBC mentioning that a direct result of it's
decision, would be that existing FTA cards would cease to work.

Because it's a decision for BSkyB. As the BBC advice mentions, some new cards
should continue to work.

This is a wider question of Sky's monopoly and the
other public service broadcasters willingness and complicity to cement that
monopoly

Agreed. But that's due to successive government's failure in not
regulating the sector and leaving it all to the market dominancy of
Sky.

In that case write to the ITC and let them know of your discomfort, blaming the
BBC is very easy but it won't actually change anything because at the end of the
day they're only responsible for themselves.

Az.

In uk.tech.tv.sky Aztech wrote:

: Err... that is the most nonsensical twisted logic I've encountered this week.
: The licence fee is to fund the BBC, the money is spent by the BBC on providing
: services for the BBC, via the BBC.

That is where your logic falls totally apart. The license fee is *NOT* to
"fund the BBC". The fact that it has traditionally been used for this purpose
does not negate this. The license fee is SUPPOSED to be used for the general
benefit of UK viewers.
The BBC's current actions suggest that they are unfit to receive all of the
license fee!

"Brian McIlwrath" wrote in message
...
In uk.tech.tv.sky Aztech wrote:

: Err... that is the most nonsensical twisted logic I've encountered this
week.
: The licence fee is to fund the BBC, the money is spent by the BBC on
providing
: services for the BBC, via the BBC.

That is where your logic falls totally apart. The license fee is *NOT* to
"fund the BBC". The fact that it has traditionally been used for this purpose
does not negate this. The license fee is SUPPOSED to be used for the general
benefit of UK viewers.

Traditionally? The licence fee has solely paid for the BBC since its inception,
the money goes to the BBC for the provision of BBC services, not HM Treasury not
ITV, not Sky, not Channel 4 or five. The licence administration and collection
has been handled by the BBC since the early 90's, who then contract it out to a
third-party company. The licence is collected by the BBC for the BBC.

There is no provision in the BBC charter or broadcasting acts to cross subsidise
the carriage of commercial channels using the licence fee. The BBC are not
required to pay for ITV/C4/five's terrestrial transmitter coverage, they're not
required to fund others DTT services and they're not required to fund viewing
cards for commercial operators that have decided to stay encrypted. If you take
'five' for example, they have negotiated a new three year deal with BSkyB
incorporating them into the mainstream packages, but I suppose you somehow think
the BBC is involved in a deal between two separate private companies.


The BBC's current actions suggest that they are unfit to receive all of the
license fee!

Their actions mean anyone can receive licence fee funded channels without having
to buy into the Sky monopoly, the previous system of forcing people to buy Sky
digiboxes and the BBC having to offer FTV cards was just an extension of that
monopoly. Now we have an open platform.

Az.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 13:39:31 GMT, "Aztech" pausing to
cast envious glances at those who had mastered the skill of reading
without moving their lips, wrote:

Traditionally? The licence fee has solely paid for the BBC since its
inception,

Apart from a few years in the 1960s when a small proportion of it was
used to fund schools programs on ITV.

That was part of their public service commitments that went along with owning a
ITV franchise, they passed this duty onto C4 over recent years and now they've
lost interest, along with various other public service terms they've now
abandoned for commercial reasons. Now they're looking for public funding for
news and current affairs because thing like Channel 4 News don't make them
enough money, despite being a requirement of their licence.


the money goes to the BBC for the provision of BBC services, not HM Treasury
not
ITV, not Sky, not Channel 4 or five. The licence administration and
collection
has been handled by the BBC since the early 90's, who then contract it out to
a
third-party company. The licence is collected by the BBC for the BBC.

But the actual licence documents describe it as a
"Television Broadcast receiving licence."
Not as a 'BBC television licence.'
Not even by what would be a far more honest description, of
'BBC-Tax receipt'

The licence itself and TV Licencing do not overtly mention the BBC, if at all, I
suppose they like to abstract themselves from their methods, but that doesn't
change the fact the licencing system is managed by the BBC to benefit of the
BBC.

Az.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:26:45 GMT, "Aztech" pausing to
cast envious glances at those who had mastered the skill of reading
without moving their lips, wrote:

In that case write to the ITC and let them know of your discomfort

With the impending change to Ofcom, you might have to wait until their
formal creation before you got anywhere.

The ITC are the current regulator that deals with these matters, that's who you
should complain to, that will be the case until the new comms bill becomes law,
then follows the transitionary period into Ofcom.


I have no discomfort. As I've already said, I use Freeview.

!

Az.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:09:40 GMT, "Aztech" pausing to
cast envious glances at those who had mastered the skill of reading
without moving their lips, wrote:

The licence itself and TV Licencing do not overtly mention the BBC, if at
all, I
suppose they like to abstract themselves from their methods, but that doesn't
change the fact the licencing system is managed by the BBC to benefit of the
BBC.

Strictly speaking and without wishing to be pedantic... Something
which would be anathematical to me. TV Licencing is actually
'managed' by a commercial company on behalf of the BBC. ;-)

Very adept of you to notice that, especially when the previous post said as
much, and the one above that :-

"The licence administration and collection has been handled by the BBC since the
early 90's, who then contract it out to a third-party company."

It's run by Capita, and Consignia (Post Office) before that.


But that doesn't change the fact that the TV licence is every bit as
much a tax, as the Road Tax is

Yes, it's a voluntary tax or levy based on TV ownership.

Az.