A bit of interesting information
-
Paul Riley wrote: You really think this is my objection, don't you? No, you've made it clear numerous times that it is the fact you are forced to pay it regarldess that you don't like, not the amount, and I didn't mean for that to be read in that way. Whoops. :-O I think of it more in terms of the Internet though a modem. I want to be able to pay whoever I like to access the Internet, and I can, ultimately, but I still pay BT £70 a year or whatever it is to lease my phone line from them, which as well as having a teeny weeny portion being actually spent on my actual line maintenance goes towards their public services (which are actually covered by a similar mandatory agreement to the BBC's Royal Charter) such as a live operator, emergency services desks, etc, etc. Oh BTW, did you know the BBC actually pays for the BCC (Broadcasting Complaints Commitee) and the upkeep our nations broadcasting infrastructure? I didn't! But, but, BUT! Not tonight! I know I know, I am not helping myself by biting all the time, but that is my personality trait and you have no right to exploit it! :-D Besides, I have been reading up on this beeb stuff for the past week since our previous spout on this subject using some of the truely comprehensive information out there, and will be starting a new thread to share it over the coming days - save the rest of this discussion till then. I have learnt a lot, and (I don't know whether to say obviously or thankfully here) the vast majority actually backs up what I have been saying all along. Go figure - there's always a time for a first. :rolleyes: Paul Riley wrote: But a mandatory tax is a mandatory tax and should be accounted as such. If it's not a tax then it shouldn't be mandatory, if it is a tax then it should be taken out of my wages and given by the government to the BBC. In my understanding this is covered in part by the Royal Charter which (in terms of the license fee) makes it a soverign duty of ours to fund the BBC started way back by Kind George V himself in 1926! :omg: The fees are set by our Secretary of State (originaly from the Home Department, but as of 1996 from the Department of National Heritage), but the ability to collect them comes from the crown. I'm still on this chapter though, so bare with me. So it's not a tax, it's a duty - we may pay it directly to the government, but they are under contractual agreement with Her Majesty herself to pay the exact license revenue to the beeb
David Wulff wrote: I think of it more in terms of the Internet though a modem. I want to be able to pay whoever I like to access the Internet, and I can, ultimately, but I still pay BT £70 a year or whatever it is to lease my phone line from them Ahh but... BT provide that service and thus it's correct that you pay them for it. You can go elsewhere but you will not have BT's service any more. I assume that if you could get an equivalent to SurfTime (or whatever you use) through another service you would do so. There is no legal obligation to pay BT for services you choose not to use. David Wulff wrote: Oh BTW, did you know the BBC actually pays for the BCC (Broadcasting Complaints Commitee) and the upkeep our nations broadcasting infrastructure? I didn't! I don't see how paying for the BCC is a good thing. If South Staffordshire Water funded OffWat, it would be a national scandal! As for the nation's broadcasting infrastructure, I'm not sure what you mean. They sure as hell don't pay for those satellite dishes that feed my broadcasting needs. David Wulff wrote: But, but, BUT! Not tonight! I know I know, I am not helping myself by biting all the time, but that is my personality trait and you have no right to exploit it! We're as bad as each other, we know we shouldn't start this. :-D David Wulff wrote: will be starting a new thread to share it over the coming days Looking forward to it. I might just argue with other people who agree with you, rather than arguing with you, that could be interesting ;) Have you considered starting a thread asking more generally what people think of the concept of a Public Corporation (ie. one with shareholders) being funded as a duty by the nation, including those who don't use them? Add to that a question about whether said corporation should be allowed to fund the organisation that regulates them and their competition. ;P David Wulff wrote: So it's not a tax, it's a duty - we may pay it directly to the government, but they are under contractual agreement with Her Majesty herself to pay the exact license revenue to the beeb, unless the House of Lords rules otherwise. Alright! So this non-elected group who take my money by force are answerable to two other non-elected groups and their shareholders? I'm not getting warm fuzzy feelings about this argument ;P David Wulff wrote:
-
David Wulff wrote: I think of it more in terms of the Internet though a modem. I want to be able to pay whoever I like to access the Internet, and I can, ultimately, but I still pay BT £70 a year or whatever it is to lease my phone line from them Ahh but... BT provide that service and thus it's correct that you pay them for it. You can go elsewhere but you will not have BT's service any more. I assume that if you could get an equivalent to SurfTime (or whatever you use) through another service you would do so. There is no legal obligation to pay BT for services you choose not to use. David Wulff wrote: Oh BTW, did you know the BBC actually pays for the BCC (Broadcasting Complaints Commitee) and the upkeep our nations broadcasting infrastructure? I didn't! I don't see how paying for the BCC is a good thing. If South Staffordshire Water funded OffWat, it would be a national scandal! As for the nation's broadcasting infrastructure, I'm not sure what you mean. They sure as hell don't pay for those satellite dishes that feed my broadcasting needs. David Wulff wrote: But, but, BUT! Not tonight! I know I know, I am not helping myself by biting all the time, but that is my personality trait and you have no right to exploit it! We're as bad as each other, we know we shouldn't start this. :-D David Wulff wrote: will be starting a new thread to share it over the coming days Looking forward to it. I might just argue with other people who agree with you, rather than arguing with you, that could be interesting ;) Have you considered starting a thread asking more generally what people think of the concept of a Public Corporation (ie. one with shareholders) being funded as a duty by the nation, including those who don't use them? Add to that a question about whether said corporation should be allowed to fund the organisation that regulates them and their competition. ;P David Wulff wrote: So it's not a tax, it's a duty - we may pay it directly to the government, but they are under contractual agreement with Her Majesty herself to pay the exact license revenue to the beeb, unless the House of Lords rules otherwise. Alright! So this non-elected group who take my money by force are answerable to two other non-elected groups and their shareholders? I'm not getting warm fuzzy feelings about this argument ;P David Wulff wrote:
What the hell are you doing up at 2:30 am! Come to think of it, what the hell am I doing up at 3:15 am writting this to you! :omg: :-O Paul Riley wrote: Ahh but... BT provide that service and thus it's correct that you pay them for it. You can go elsewhere but you will not have BT's service any more. I assume that if you could get an equivalent to SurfTime (or whatever you use) through another service you would do so. I'd still be obligated to pay BT line rental though or they would disconnect my phone line - there is no way out of that, even if you go through a BT Wholesale company you still have to pay BT the line rental through them. Paul Riley wrote: There is no legal obligation to pay BT for services you choose not to use I think I see what you are aiming at here, but that was why I choose BT... if I don't want the service I am paying for (a phone line, regardless of which other companies services I use it for), I don't get a phone line. Likewise, if you don't pay your license feee you should not be watching tellevision - again, regardless of who provides the additional services. Paul Riley wrote: I don't see how paying for the BCC is a good thing. Neither do I - now there are additional service providers that should be moved onto national taxes and not be paid as part of the license fees. Strangely enough I don't automatically assume differently to you you know! :) Paul Riley wrote: As for the nation's broadcasting infrastructure, I'm not sure what you mean. They sure as hell don't pay for those satellite dishes that feed my broadcasting needs. Terrestrial infrastructure, and they (currently) pay for the upkeep necessary to keep them functioning. This *should* be part of their duties (and is covered by the Royal Charter as one) because the BBC are responsible for providing a national security broadcasting system as well as ensuring their services are available to us, the populous of the United Kingdom. Presumably we have something similar to the emergency broadcast system in the US? :~ If a storm takes out a broadcasting centre the beeb pay for it to be fixed. I would assume the other service providers (radio, television, etc) either use their own centres, lease them from the beeb or else they both use a third party. The exact details on this issue were boring me so I moved on. :-O Paul Riley wrote: We're as bad as each other,
-
What the hell are you doing up at 2:30 am! Come to think of it, what the hell am I doing up at 3:15 am writting this to you! :omg: :-O Paul Riley wrote: Ahh but... BT provide that service and thus it's correct that you pay them for it. You can go elsewhere but you will not have BT's service any more. I assume that if you could get an equivalent to SurfTime (or whatever you use) through another service you would do so. I'd still be obligated to pay BT line rental though or they would disconnect my phone line - there is no way out of that, even if you go through a BT Wholesale company you still have to pay BT the line rental through them. Paul Riley wrote: There is no legal obligation to pay BT for services you choose not to use I think I see what you are aiming at here, but that was why I choose BT... if I don't want the service I am paying for (a phone line, regardless of which other companies services I use it for), I don't get a phone line. Likewise, if you don't pay your license feee you should not be watching tellevision - again, regardless of who provides the additional services. Paul Riley wrote: I don't see how paying for the BCC is a good thing. Neither do I - now there are additional service providers that should be moved onto national taxes and not be paid as part of the license fees. Strangely enough I don't automatically assume differently to you you know! :) Paul Riley wrote: As for the nation's broadcasting infrastructure, I'm not sure what you mean. They sure as hell don't pay for those satellite dishes that feed my broadcasting needs. Terrestrial infrastructure, and they (currently) pay for the upkeep necessary to keep them functioning. This *should* be part of their duties (and is covered by the Royal Charter as one) because the BBC are responsible for providing a national security broadcasting system as well as ensuring their services are available to us, the populous of the United Kingdom. Presumably we have something similar to the emergency broadcast system in the US? :~ If a storm takes out a broadcasting centre the beeb pay for it to be fixed. I would assume the other service providers (radio, television, etc) either use their own centres, lease them from the beeb or else they both use a third party. The exact details on this issue were boring me so I moved on. :-O Paul Riley wrote: We're as bad as each other,
David Wulff wrote: What the hell are you doing up at 2:30 am! Come to think of it, what the hell am I doing up at 3:15 am writting this to you! And what the hell am I still doing up at 5:00? Who knows? ;P David Wulff wrote: I think I see what you are aiming at here, but that was why I choose BT... if I don't want the service I am paying for (a phone line, regardless of which other companies services I use it for), I don't get a phone line. Likewise, if you don't pay your license feee you should not be watching tellevision - again, regardless of who provides the additional services. And I would agree with that if you were saying that I shouldn't be watching TERRESTRIAL television. The BBC provide nothing if I watch only DVDs through my television, the BBC provide nothing if I watch only non-BBC satellite. The law is outdated, it stems back to a time when the BBC were the TV and ITV was an offshoot. Things have moved along way, the very fact that the Lords are involved only goes to explain why the law hasn't. BT are providing you a service, like it or not. If you can find another company to pay for the provision of phone lines then by all means do so. I have another way of watching TV. Like I said before, the problem with BT is that it's a monopoly; the problem with the BBC is that it's a state-funded monopoly that you have to pay for even if they provide nothing to you personally. If a storm takes out a TV transmitter, I and 6 million other satellite subscribers, and however many cable subscribers don't give a f---, flying or otherwise, if the BBC fix the transmitter or not. David Wulff wrote: I know, but like chocolate ice cream it is just too damned irresistable! :-D Indeed. Or those triple-chocolate twixes... mmmmmm! David Wulff wrote: Neither do I - now there are additional service providers that should be moved onto national taxes and not be paid as part of the license fees. Strangely enough I don't automatically assume differently to you you know Sorry, sounded like a justification purely because it came in the same sentence as the infrastructure comment. My bad. :laugh: David Wulff wrote: Kind of like Smokers being forced to pay for lung cancer research but not non-smokers. Don't get me started on that :-D. I have at least four grievances I could bring from that one comment. David Wulff wrote:
-
David Wulff wrote: What the hell are you doing up at 2:30 am! Come to think of it, what the hell am I doing up at 3:15 am writting this to you! And what the hell am I still doing up at 5:00? Who knows? ;P David Wulff wrote: I think I see what you are aiming at here, but that was why I choose BT... if I don't want the service I am paying for (a phone line, regardless of which other companies services I use it for), I don't get a phone line. Likewise, if you don't pay your license feee you should not be watching tellevision - again, regardless of who provides the additional services. And I would agree with that if you were saying that I shouldn't be watching TERRESTRIAL television. The BBC provide nothing if I watch only DVDs through my television, the BBC provide nothing if I watch only non-BBC satellite. The law is outdated, it stems back to a time when the BBC were the TV and ITV was an offshoot. Things have moved along way, the very fact that the Lords are involved only goes to explain why the law hasn't. BT are providing you a service, like it or not. If you can find another company to pay for the provision of phone lines then by all means do so. I have another way of watching TV. Like I said before, the problem with BT is that it's a monopoly; the problem with the BBC is that it's a state-funded monopoly that you have to pay for even if they provide nothing to you personally. If a storm takes out a TV transmitter, I and 6 million other satellite subscribers, and however many cable subscribers don't give a f---, flying or otherwise, if the BBC fix the transmitter or not. David Wulff wrote: I know, but like chocolate ice cream it is just too damned irresistable! :-D Indeed. Or those triple-chocolate twixes... mmmmmm! David Wulff wrote: Neither do I - now there are additional service providers that should be moved onto national taxes and not be paid as part of the license fees. Strangely enough I don't automatically assume differently to you you know Sorry, sounded like a justification purely because it came in the same sentence as the infrastructure comment. My bad. :laugh: David Wulff wrote: Kind of like Smokers being forced to pay for lung cancer research but not non-smokers. Don't get me started on that :-D. I have at least four grievances I could bring from that one comment. David Wulff wrote:
Paul Riley wrote: And what the hell am I still doing up at 5:00? Who knows? Probably the same thing I am at 6:15 - and no I have not gone to bed yet! :omg: :-O Paul Riley wrote: And I would agree with that if you were saying that I shouldn't be watching TERRESTRIAL television. The BBC provide nothing if I watch only DVDs through my television, the BBC provide nothing if I watch only non-BBC satellite. The fact is there and undisputable: BBC services were used by 93% of the UK population during the past year. Paul Riley wrote: Or those triple-chocolate twixes... mmmmmm! Uck! I can't stand them. X| Paul Riley wrote: Ahh, but I was suggesting you don't mention the BBC at all. I'm talking about the concept, not the case. We brits are fed so much crap about how much good the beeb does, it' be interesting to see a more conceptual discussion. The problem with that is that there is no concept and there is no comparisons - anywhere in the world today. In my little speech I mentioned, which has been in continual draft since last week now, I will touch on this in the only other way I can see - ants, a bit of stick and a lot of buggering. :rolleyes: But you must wait for that - I wont be publishing it till I hve finished it, and that will be a few more days yet. Paul Riley wrote: What if the Royal family declared that everybody who wears Jeans must pay a levy to Levis, even if we prefered a Wrangler cut? What if the Queen announced that everybody who uses a computer must pay Microsoft, even if they use Linux? What if we had to pay a chocolate eaters license to Cadburys? [edit]And before you play the entertainment-is-essential card: what if we had to pay UCI to go to an Odeon cinema; what if we had to pay Orbit for every book we buy? And an interesting afterthought - what if we had to pay the BBC for listening to Virgin Radio?[/edit] They would not, and more importantly could not. That is *nothing* like the way the BBC is handled - nothing like it at all. Paul Riley wrote: They just have a whole bunch of other stupid rules Rule number one in the Guide Book of The World, if I remember correctly? ;P Paul Riley wrote: I'm indifferent towards the Royal family, I figure they bring in tourism to roughly the tune that they cost us. No big deal. I'm not going to diverge i
-
Paul Riley wrote: Try to see the difference between a joke and a serious suggestion. I can't be bothered with a Sincerity Bob LOL - I didn't take it seriously, you merely jogged my meory of something I was meaning to tell you a few days ago but forgot all about it. :) On topic though, there is a one off Waking The Dead showing this weekend (I suspect it is the one they cancelled when those two young girls tragically went missing). You've always said you wanted to see what it was like. ;P Paul Riley wrote: I don't buy the Telegraph or any other news paper; they're all as bad as the beeb except I have a choice. Telecide! (:)) But what about the cartoons?! :wtf: Actually to be honest the only reason we started regularly buying a newspaper was to give us something to wrap potatoe peelings up in. Before we had the freebie papers a couple of times a week, but they only deliver a small one now and that isn't big enough to roll up. :laugh: Paul Riley wrote: think they're bad now? You should have seen them before Oh I've heard, but they were both for totally different reasons to those I dislike BT for. Paul Riley wrote: There was a poll on The Wright Stuff What's that? :~ Paul Riley wrote: and 69% came out against Did they break the results down into age and social groups - that is something I think we'd both be interested in seeing. A very valid point was made the other day on this issue - would ITV show the BBC's Asia Today series? The short answer is no. I think that is a very clear example of just what duties the BBC has to perform - and let's not forget the BBC is govered by Royal Charter not legislation like the commercial services. Argh look what you have done to me! You've made me go off again - quick, slap me before I carry on and waste both of our evenings. ;) BT, now the beeb, how about the NHS - we haven't ripped them to shreds in a while... :) Paul Riley wrote: this tiny minority you put me in may not be as tiny as you think Oh I think it is. Try conducting your own research along the lines I said to Paul Watson (I think it was him?) the other day. All the controversial topics related to money can be argued down to contradictions with relative ease. Lastly for the time being, listen to my new sig - if that doesn't settle every dispute I don't know what will!
David Wulff wrote: Tiptoe Through The Tulips How did anyone of your generation find that? How will mine ever live it down? I'm curious as to the reasons given for the lack of interest from business owners in better Internet access. Was cost the overriding factor, or merely a lack of perceived value? I've found that many small businesses lack any interest in the Internet, until you lead them by the hand and get them to fully use its capabilities. Then they can't imagine how they ever did any business without it! I had to trick my last employer into getting its first connection, then fight to let me network the office PCs. Within a couple of years, the loss of an Internet connection or email capability for a few hours was, in the bosses' perceptions, a major business crisis! Not that anyone ever thanked me, or gave me a raise or anything... Do the people you contacted actually use it, or do they just surf for dirty pictures when things are slow? "Another day done; all targets met; all systems fully operational; all customers satisfied; all staff keen and well motivated; all pigs fed and ready to fly." - Jennie Agard, McGuckin Hardware Systems Manager
-
Well interesting to me anyway. It seems either the letter I wrote to the town council or, hopefully, that many interested people did with regards to getting companies in Tiverton to register their interest in broadband and thus hopefully get the local exchange upgraded has been noticed. The town-centre manager launched a campaign yesterday to get local businesses to register their interest with BT. Before the weekend the percentage of the required level of interest needed to upgrade was fifteen percent (one hundred and nine of seven hundred needed), so we'll need a fair few businesses and residential users to sign up, but maybe just maybe we can reach the target number. Having the town authorities behind it can only be a good thing. I'm not holding my breath again, but watch this space. On another note, I was shocked to find out that my web site (and more specifically the part about my troubles with BT) is getting thousands of hits a month, largely from around the UK! My mailbox is getting too large to handle! I suppose I can attribute that to the sheer number of people searching on ""I hate BT"". :laugh: Talking of which, I think I need to write the conclusion of my BT adventure and publish it there too when I jump ship in a few weeks time. I'm thinking of calling it "Suck this bitches", what do you think? :suss:
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
David, I'm glad to see your letter has motivated the town centre manager :cool: David Wulff wrote: I'm thinking of calling it "Suck this bitches", what do you think Sure the anger rating should be 0 ? :rolleyes: Elaine (fluffy tigress emoticon) Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
-
David Wulff wrote: Tiptoe Through The Tulips How did anyone of your generation find that? How will mine ever live it down? I'm curious as to the reasons given for the lack of interest from business owners in better Internet access. Was cost the overriding factor, or merely a lack of perceived value? I've found that many small businesses lack any interest in the Internet, until you lead them by the hand and get them to fully use its capabilities. Then they can't imagine how they ever did any business without it! I had to trick my last employer into getting its first connection, then fight to let me network the office PCs. Within a couple of years, the loss of an Internet connection or email capability for a few hours was, in the bosses' perceptions, a major business crisis! Not that anyone ever thanked me, or gave me a raise or anything... Do the people you contacted actually use it, or do they just surf for dirty pictures when things are slow? "Another day done; all targets met; all systems fully operational; all customers satisfied; all staff keen and well motivated; all pigs fed and ready to fly." - Jennie Agard, McGuckin Hardware Systems Manager
Roger Wright wrote: How did anyone of your generation find that? How will mine ever live it down? LOL - nicely phrased. :) Why is it so surprising that Tiny Tim still has a, albeit relatively small, following today? Roger Wright wrote: Was cost the overriding factor, or merely a lack of perceived value? I believe it was probably due to the 'shared rental', i.e. they showed no interest after I pointed out that we would need a number of subscribers to remain cost effective. Roger Wright wrote: Do the people you contacted actually use it, or do they just surf for dirty pictures when things are slow? Well the first things I asked where if and why they used the Internet, and in one case even got caught on a tangent sympathising with a company who was complaining bitterly at not being able to communicate with their other offices effectively over their ISDN connection. Yet as soon as the cost and requirements came out yet again it was a "thanks but no thanks". I haven't ruled it out altogether yet. I'm going to wait to see how the town council's campaign to get businesses to sign up for ADSL goes, and if that is not looking to be sucessful I may consider writing a piece for the local paper to rally support.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
-
Roger Wright wrote: How did anyone of your generation find that? How will mine ever live it down? LOL - nicely phrased. :) Why is it so surprising that Tiny Tim still has a, albeit relatively small, following today? Roger Wright wrote: Was cost the overriding factor, or merely a lack of perceived value? I believe it was probably due to the 'shared rental', i.e. they showed no interest after I pointed out that we would need a number of subscribers to remain cost effective. Roger Wright wrote: Do the people you contacted actually use it, or do they just surf for dirty pictures when things are slow? Well the first things I asked where if and why they used the Internet, and in one case even got caught on a tangent sympathising with a company who was complaining bitterly at not being able to communicate with their other offices effectively over their ISDN connection. Yet as soon as the cost and requirements came out yet again it was a "thanks but no thanks". I haven't ruled it out altogether yet. I'm going to wait to see how the town council's campaign to get businesses to sign up for ADSL goes, and if that is not looking to be sucessful I may consider writing a piece for the local paper to rally support.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
David Wulff wrote: Why is it so surprising that Tiny Tim still has a, albeit relatively small, following today? Statistically, they all should be dead of old age or AIDS by now. "Another day done; all targets met; all systems fully operational; all customers satisfied; all staff keen and well motivated; all pigs fed and ready to fly." - Jennie Agard, McGuckin Hardware Systems Manager
-
David Wulff wrote: Why is it so surprising that Tiny Tim still has a, albeit relatively small, following today? Statistically, they all should be dead of old age or AIDS by now. "Another day done; all targets met; all systems fully operational; all customers satisfied; all staff keen and well motivated; all pigs fed and ready to fly." - Jennie Agard, McGuckin Hardware Systems Manager
The problem with statistics is that 45% of them are all wrong. :-D :suss:
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
-
The problem with statistics is that 45% of them are all wrong. :-D :suss:
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
David Wulff wrote: The problem with statistics is that 45% of them are all wrong. Only 45%? What's the correlation coefficient of that estimate? And what percentage are only partially wrong, as opposed to all wrong?;P "Another day done; all targets met; all systems fully operational; all customers satisfied; all staff keen and well motivated; all pigs fed and ready to fly." - Jennie Agard, McGuckin Hardware Systems Manager
-
Brian Delahunty wrote: How did your search for businesses to share a leased line go??? So far I have had zero responses from the companies I've spoken with. Zero. :((
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
David Wulff wrote: So far I have had zero responses from the companies I've spoken with. Zero. Hopefully you'll have more luck with the DSL :-) Regards, Brian Dela :-)