Please read the news story then write to this uninformed MP

**Jim Watt** · July 13th 03, 01:10 AM posted to alt.satellite.tv.europe,uk.tech.tv.sky

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 17:33:20 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 17:31:16 +0100, Paul Duffy paul at scim dot co
dot uk pausing to cast envious glances at those who had mastered the
skill of reading without moving their lips, wrote:

To an extent, Chris Bryant has got a valid point in that news article.

Yes, he happens to live in an area where terrestial services are crap
so he is representing the views of his electorate.

The original justification which the BBC used for it's decision to go
FTA, was that it would be saving a lot of money.

Yes and it did

Now it seems, it will - after paying Sky for new software changes to
EPG etc. - be saving very little money.

********.

The only viewers who are gaining by the whole thing so far, are the
non licence-paying freeloaders in mainland Europe.

On the contrary as they all had BBc cards, its the licence payer who
is saving 12 quid a pop for their cards.

same time that licence-paying viewers in the UK are losing access to
some of the channels.

Better complain

This does seem to typify the stupid priorities exhibited by the BBC in
many things in recent years.

reception is not the problem of the BBC. providing cards to
receive ITV is not either.

At the very least the BBC should have consulted with the other
independant broadcasters,

At the very least they should have taken the initiative in issuing
cards instead of doing so on the back of the beeb

It is patently absurd for the BBC to claim that they are not
responsible for the actions/effects it has on other broadcasters.

********.

Everybody in Britain has to pay a TV licence fee which goes to the
BBC, some of those viewers may never watch the BBC, but they can't opt
out of paying the licence fee. In that respect, when the BBC does
something that adversely affects viewers of the other broadcasters,
the harm it causes is of course the responsibility of the BBC.

You pay for a licence to keep a television, what happens to the money
is none of your concern.

Tony Blair uses the money from dog licences to poodle about the USA.

BBC responsibilty extends to ALL licence payers, not just those who
view it's channels..

********. Absolute sheer unadulterated ********.

perhaps you should have watched the communications bill on BBC
Parliament.
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

**Jim Watt** · July 13th 03, 11:35 AM posted to alt.satellite.tv.europe,uk.tech.tv.sky

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:37:14 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

I have to work for my living old son... I can't laze around in the
sun, freeloading all day, like some. ;-)

ahhhhh.

--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

**Lee@DVDDebate** · July 14th 03, 11:46 AM posted to alt.satellite.tv.europe,uk.tech.tv.sky

wrote:

Now it seems, it will - after paying Sky for new software changes to
EPG etc. - be saving very little money.

********.

So go and look at the initial claims of saving the BBC said it would
be making, then look at what it now says it will have to pay Sky for
still doing.

But that's a one-off payment vs ongoing access fees. At some point in
the future the Beeb will break even and then save money on the deal. If
that takes 2-5 years, so what?

Lee.
--
Editor, DVD Debate
http://www.dvddebate.com
lee at dvddebate dot com

Upset motorists: remember, motorways offer a hard shoulder to cry on.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode