Skype is down

BBC is indeed a rather good news source. However, I resent the method to tax people simply because they own a receiver. Almost like "Here is our government programming and since we are the government we have decided that you will like it and so you must pay". From there it's only a small step to "increase the tax base", as evidenced by other countries who now figured that if they put some of their stations onto the web then they can also tax all the PC owners with an Internet connection. And, tada, drum roll, here we have the infamous Internet tax waltzing right through the back door.

It works like some medical "studies". A percentage is calculated out of a very small sample number. In the US they use telephone surveys as well and that leads to a really twisted picture. Some people jump to the phone every time it rings, sometimes while wolfing down a burger with the other hand. Others (like us) do not pick up the phone during dinner and than can easily be an hour or more.

People who agree to modified TV sets, data links or boxes with buttons are probably all hyper-viewers, glued to the tube all the time. So it's a twisted picture as well.

Then, who is to say how many watch the ads and how many continue with their crochet project or skadaddle and get a fresh beer?

I understand them (bith Radio 1 and Radio 2) to be on one of the satellite networks, Sirius IIRC.

Robert

Actually, I was approached by the people who provide the boxes (I forget their name but they were just sub-contractors anyway) to see if I wanted one in my house. I agreed to it but they messed me about with the dates they were going to install it so in the end I told them where to stick it.

I'm not a massive TV watcher because I simply don't have time (and I'm in the pub too much) but I tend not to watch the popularist rubbish so hopefully I would provide a bit of balance to all the soap-watchers.

Since I got my DVR and can fast-forward the adverts then I rarely watch any :-)

As I said in another post then, given the choice, I would probably choose to pay but then I'm fortunate in that I can afford to. However, $20 per month is a lot for a pensioner who might only be receiving a basic pension but they must still pay up. What I resent is not having the choice.

I also think the BBC have been eroding their world-wide respect for a few years now. The political bias in their news reporting has been evident for some time but is now starting to become embarassing. They have also had a number of scandals involving phone-in quiz fraud and don't get me started on the David Kelly situation (Iraq weapons inspector who committed suicide in highly dubious circumstances). The place needs a good shake-up and to distance itself from the government to try to restore some integrity.

In article , Tom Lucas writes

Bias which way?

To be fair that was largely the subcontracted companies and ALL the UK terrestrial broadcast TV channel had the same problems.

The BBC did not get that wrong.

Absolutely. Blair and his spin doctors have a lot to answer for.,

Well, not for the German Einschaltquoten certainly. Media Control has been doing it using instrumented test households since day one. One important reason is that their customers (stations, advertisers) want the number of actual _viewers_, not the number of tubes running. There's no non-intrusive way of figuring out if somebody's actually in the same room as the running TV, much less whether they're paying any attention to it.

Anyway, a survey based on antenna receiver frequencies would be utterly distorted these days, when practically all households use satellite receivers, cable or DVB-T. Analog terrestrial TV is practically dead (down to less than 5% of households, and that's including DVB-T).

Yes. Rumors such as this one:

Tom Lucas wrote: > I've heard of > several people who have no TVs at all in their house and the license > inspectors check their homes every 2 months or so - and you can't stop > them!

The over 75's get free licenses, thankfully. However that doesn't help younger pensionsers...

... snip ...

Don't come to Canada. We have wolves and pumas and other beasts, all of which are in the habit of dining on biased conservatives. :-)

I try to do my bit for the Beeb - these non-payers keep pushing up my license fee ;-)

That's something that annoys me. Once you're retired then presumably your income stays much the same (excluding savings and lump sums etc) from when you are 65 to when you are 85. Why is the magic number 75 and not 65? A 75 year old has largely the same spending power as a 65 year old.

At least two channels, even on analogue terrestrial. On digital terrestrial/satellite/cable four general channels, two kiddies channels, a rolling news service and a dedicated Parliamentary coverage channel, plus the website and myriad local and national radio stations. All ad free which as another poster points out can amount to as much as 1/3 of the time on commercial stations.

I think it's a good deal: IMHO the news coverage alone is worth that, and BBC1 routinely tops the ratings in terms of overall audience share.

I think it's more likely that CBC radio is not _easily_ available in the US. I've picked up a few MW stations late at night here in the UK. True, the receiver I used was particularly sensitive but certainly not a ham radio rig. The US is much closer to Canada than I am. ;-)

Aircraft radios have been digitally tuned (mechanical or electronic) for 40 years or more and do not have any method to tune below 108 MHz.

Since many of the radios are transmitters as well, one would think that the station license would cover receiving as well as transmitting.

Some aircraft are equipped with an ADF receiver which can be used to listen to AM broadcast stations. Listening to the radio is a way to occupy otherwise boring time while flying slower aircraft. The direction-finding aspect can be used as a navigation supplement.

I thought aircraft ADF receivers could tune the broadcast bands.

Well, I posted before I read the the whole thing. The issue is FM broadcasts, and since the aircraft VHF band is AM, it's doubtful that anything could be received even if it could be tuned.

OTOH, I'm pretty sure that ADF will both receive and home to AM broadcast stations.

The clue is in your post: it's not the TV, it's the tuner. Monitors without tuners are not subject to the license fee. Tuners without monitors (e.g. video recorder, DVB receiver on a USB stick) are.

Steve

But also full of leaky DSL connections, dimmers, switcher bricks of dubious origin and so on. When you turn on a AM band or SW receiver at night, even with an outdoor antenna, you hear tons of buzzes, pops, howlers and whatnot. During the day it's somewhat bearable but at night I just turn the receiver off.